The necessity for a claimant of adverse possession to acknowledge the true owner's title in order for the plea of adverse possession to succeed.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 9125/2023 (for exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 299/2023 & CM APPL. 9124/2023 (for stay)

3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 17.11.2022 in RCA DJ No. 78/2019 titled as "Sh. Virender Singh vs. Sh. Surinder Singh and Anr.", whereby the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner upholding the dismissal of his objections by the Executing Court.

4. Learned counsel submits that the Executing Court as well as the First Appellate Court overlooked the basic aspect that vide order dated 04.01.2018, the learned DRC had deleted the name of the petitioner/ objector from the rent control proceedings, bearing RC No. 5828/2016 titled as "Surinder Singh vs. Sh. Prabhu Kuttan and Anr.", on the ground that the petitioner is not a necessary party.

5. Learned counsel submits that having deleted the petitioner from the array of parties, the learned rent control Court observed that the dispute of title raised by the petitioner could be decided in a separate independent suit, wherein the parties would establish their own title in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel also submits that another relevant observation made by the learned Trial Court while passing the order dated 04.01.2018 was, that any party which does not fall within the relationship of landlord and tenant would obviously not be relevant to the lis and on that ground, the petitioner was deleted from the array of parties.

7. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel further submits that accordingly the petitioner has filed a suit seeking establishment of title against the respondent Sh. Surinder Singh and others.

8. Learned counsel submits that in the interregnum, the ARC had also passed an eviction decree in favour of respondent Sh. Surinder Singh, whereon, the execution proceedings were initiated by the said respondent.

9. Learned counsel submits that both, the learned Executing Court as well as the First Appellate Court overlooked the relevant aspect that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property by virtue of an independent title and not a sub-tenant of the tenant before the Rent Control Court. On that basis, learned counsel submits that the objections ought to have been dealt akin to a suit whereby, the First Appellate Court ought to have determined the issues in disputes after requiring leading cogent evidence by the parties.

10. Learned counsel submits that having not done so, this Court ought to interfere with the impugned orders.

11. This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr. Aggarwal and perused the impugned judgment dismissing the objections of the petitioner.

12. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that the sub stratum of the petitioner of establishing his title over the suit property, is by prescription of adverse possession and not by a regular title.

13. It is trite that a person claiming adverse possession has to plea of animus possidendi as against the true owner and the said plea would fail if the said assertion is made against any person other than the true owner of the subject suit property.

14. Applying the aforesaid principle, it becomes clear that the petitioner, admittedly, had made a specific assertion in the rent control proceedings that he has become owner by way of adverse possession and had denied the ownership and title of the respondent Sh. Surinder Singh.

15. On that basis, learned First Appellate Court had passed the impugned order observing that the plea of adverse possession so raised by the petitioner would obviously fail since the petitioner was denying the ownership and title of the respondent Sh. Surinder Singh.

16. It is observed that the learned First Appellate Court has examined each and every issue and objection raised by the petitioner before it and has categorically distinguished every objection and has c