Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Sohan Lal Passi - Respondent
EX.S.A. 1 of 2019 & CM Appl. 6642 of 2019 and EX.S.A. 3 of 2019 CM & Appl. 12629 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2022
ADVERSE POSSESSION - SUIT PROPERTY - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Sohan Lal Passi filed Suit 477/1968 before the learned Civil Judge against one Roop Ram, seeking recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.825/- as well as possession the suit property. Sohan Lal Passi claimed to be owner of the said property, of which Roop Ram was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.25/-. The suit averred that Roop Ram was in arrears of rent for the period 1st December, 1965 to 31st August, 1968, totalling to an amount of Rs.825/-. It was also alleged, in the plaint, that Roop Ram had constructed temporary huts on the suit property and let out the huts to various persons, without the consent of Sohan Lal Passi. On Roop Ram failing to vacate the suit property despite termination of the tenancy by Sohan Lal Passi vide notice dated 20th April, 1968, or to cough up the arrears of rent, Sohan Lal Passi, as already noted, filed Suit 477/1968, seeking recovery of arrears of rent as well as recovery of possession of the suit property after evicting Roop Ram and the allegedly illegal sub-tenants therefrom.
Finding of the Court:
The appellants/objectors were, and continue to be, in unauthorised possession of the suit property. It cannot be believed that they remained unaware of the decree which was passed on 13th October, 1972 till 2009. Rather, once the objectors/appellants realised that the execution proceedings were underway, they raised belated objections to the decree. Completely oblivious of the rights of Sohan Lal Passi, as the owner of the suit property, to acquire possession thereof, and with an attempt to frustrate the decree which had been passed as far back as on 13th October, 1972, the appellants have, with absolute impunity, been raising one indefensible plea after another, at every stage of the proceedings, as a result of which Sohan Lal Passi was unable to secure the fruits of the decree passed in his favour on 13th October, 1972 during his lifetime and, as on date, his legal heirs continue to have to battle to get the benefits of the said decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and to what effect? 2. Was the defendant living as a tenant on 525 sq. yds. of land in suit and at what rent? 3. Did the defendant pay rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per month till December, 1967? 4. Did defendant surrender back the possession of the tenanted land to the plaintiff in December, 1967? If so, how and to what effect? 5. Relief. 6. Whether the defendant is entitled for suspension of rent? If so since when?
Ratio Decidendi: The law regarding collusion and fraud stands crystallised over a period of time, through countless decisions of the Supreme Court. A plea of collusion or fraud, in order to sustain, has to be supported by clear pleadings as well as evidence. Neither are there any pleadings, nor is there any evidence worth the name, to support any allegation of collusion or fraud, as would vitiate the decree dated 13th October, 1972.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/-, to be paid by each of the appellants in these appeals. The costs would be paid by way of cross cheques favouring the respondents, to be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of two weeks from today. The appeals of the appellants having been dismissed, the matter is directed to be listed before the executing Court for ensuring immediate execution of the Decree dated 13th October, 1972, without any further delay.
1. Both these appeals arise out of order dated 1st October, 2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in M.C.A. No. MCA/DJ/17/17 (Sohan Lal Passi v. Roop Ram).
2. This case is a classic example of the malaise to which the Supreme Court, with dismay, alludes in the following passages from its judgment in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021)6 SCC 418:
"22. These appeals portray the troubles of the decree-holder in not being able to enjoy the fruits of litigation on account of inordinate delay caused during the process of execution of decree.
*****
23. This Court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Council in General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing, 1872 SCC OnLine PC 16: (1871-72)14 Moo IA 605, which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna, (2009)9 SCC 689: (2009)3 SCC (Civ) 820, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution. The Court opined that the Law Commission or Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be a handmaid of justice and subserve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice."
3. The predecessor of the respondents in these petitions, Sohan Lal Passi, was the successful plaintiff in a suit instituted by him on 26th September 1968, for recovering possession of a land situated at Plot No. 5, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi ("the suit property"). A decree, in his favour was passed on 13th October, 1972.
4. Half a century has elapsed since then. Possession of the land was never obtained by Sohan Lal Passi who, like Beckett's hero, kept waiting, till he passed into eternity sometime in 1974.
5. His successors continue to fight for the fruits of the decree passed on 13th October, 1972. In the process, the petitioners, who claim to be in "adverse possession" of the suit property for over 50 years, continue to enjoy the property. They have, thus far, successfully managed to obstruct, in every possible manner, the execution of the decree by Sohan Lal Passi or, after his death, by his successors.
6. With this prefatory background, we may proceed, in somewhat greater detail, to the facts.
Facts
7. Sohan Lal Passi filed Suit 477/1968 before the learned Civil Judge against one Roop Ram, seeking recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.825/- as well as possession the suit property. Sohan Lal Passi claimed to be owner of the said property, of which Roop Ram was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.25/-. The suit averred that Roop Ram was in arrears of rent for the period 1st December, 1965 to 31st August, 1968, totalling to an amount of Rs.825/-. It was also alleged, in the plaint, that Roop Ram had constructed temporary huts on the suit property and let out the huts to various persons, without the consent of Sohan Lal Passi. On Roop Ram failing to vacate the suit property despite termination of the tenancy by Sohan Lal Passi vide notice dated 20th April, 1968, or to cough up the arrears of rent, Sohan Lal Passi, as already noted, filed Suit 477/1968, seeking recovery of arrears of rent as well as recovery of possession of the suit property after evicting Roop Ram and the allegedly illegal sub-tenants therefrom.
8. Roop Ram s
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold ....
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
The main legal point established is that adverse possession requires open and hostile assertion of ownership, and mere long possession is insufficient to sustain a claim. Additionally, the importance....
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
A fresh suit for recovery of possession based on title after a partition decree is barred by Section 47 CPC; delivery is part of execution; adverse possession cannot defeat a decree holder where co-o....
To claim adverse possession, one must establish continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period, acknowledging the title of the true owner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
