Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
M/s Economics Transport Organisation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
M/s Mohan Investments And Properties Pvt Ltd & Anr. – Respondents
EX.F.A. 20 of 2023 & CM APPL. 31710 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - C.P.C - Section 47, Order 21 Rule 97 - The court discussed the claim petition filed under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. and dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant had no independent interest in the subject property separate from the judgment debtor. The court analyzed the contentions of the parties and concluded that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of adverse possession. The court found that the appellant's claim of adverse possession was an abuse of process of law and a mockery of law. The court dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the respondent within fifteen days.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant resisted handing over possession of a property and initiated litigation against the respondent, claiming ownership based on adverse possession. The claim petition was filed under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. The court found that the appellant had no independent interest in the subject property and dismissed the claim petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim of adverse possession was baseless and an abuse of process of law. The court dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the respondent within fifteen days.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had an independent interest in the subject property based on adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of adverse possession and that the claim petition was an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the respondent within fifteen days.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral):
CM APPL. 31709/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
EX.F.A. 20/2023 & CM APPL. 31710/2023
1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by ADJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Executing Court') in Ex. No. 432/2021, whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C.
2. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the decree holder and has obtained a decree of possession dated 06.12.2018 in civil suit i.e., CS No. 13865/2016 with respect to property bearing no. 1-E/6, Swami Ram Tirath Nagar, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 (`subject property') against Respondent No. 2 herein i.e., the judgement debtor. The subject property was let out to Respondent No. 2 vide registered lease deed dated 25.03.1975. Respondent No. 2, assailed the decree of possession by filing an appeal i.e., RFA No. 123/2019. However, after arguments in the said appeal Respondent No. 2 gave an unconditional undertaking on 11.02.2019 to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the subject property by 15.05.2019. In this manner, the decree of possession dated 06.12.2018 has attained finality.
3. However, the Respondent No. 2 failed to hand over the possession of the subject property in terms of the undertaking given to this Court and addressed a letter dated 09.05.2019 to the Respondent No. 1 stating that the Appellant herein is in possession of the subject property and they are therefore, unable to comply with the said undertaking.
4. The Appellant herein, thereafter resisted handing over the possession of the subject property and initiated litigation against the Respondent No. 1 by filing a civil suit before this Court on May, 2019, asserting an independent claim of ownership in the subject property based on adverse possession. The said civil suit was however withdrawn by the Appellant vide order dated 12.02.2020 and costs were imposed by this Court while permitting the said withdrawal. The Appellant, however failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the subject property to Respondent No. 1.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, Respondent No. 1 was constrained to file the execution petition on 01.10.2021 i.e., Ex. No. 432/2021 seeking execution of the decree dated 06.12.2018 for recovery of possession of the subject property. The Executing Court issued warrants of possession on 14.10.2022 and appointed a bailiff for recovering the possession of the subject property with the assistance of the Police. However, on 14.11.2022 when the bailiff visited the property there was a religious ceremony organised in the subject property and therefore the bailiff did not deem it appropriate to execute the warrants of possession.
6. The Appellant herein thereafter filed a claim petition in November, 2022 before the Executing Court under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. seeking a declaration of title in its favour solely on the basis of adverse possession. This claim petition as noted above has been dismissed by the Executing Court after perusing the record and concluding that the Appellant herein has no independent interest, separate from Respondent No. 2, in the subject property.
Arguments on behalf of the Appellant
7. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that the Executing Court has failed to appreciate the contentions of the Appellant raised in the claim petition wherein the Appellant has set up his claim of an independent title on the basis of adverse possession. He relies upon the assertions made at paragraph 13 of the claim petition, which reads as under:
"13. That the Plaintiff/Claimant having open, continuous, uninterrupted and or hostile over the' suit property is crystal clear from the fact that since the Respondent/Defendant/JD No.1 had so claimed themselves t
AI
Objections to the admissibility of evidence should be raised when the evidence is tendered and cannot be raised subsequently. The plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars an....
Establishing adverse possession requires clear, unambiguous evidence of hostile intent and disclosure of all necessary details; mere long possession without asserting hostile rights does not suffice.
The essential ingredients for adverse possession must be pleaded clearly, and long possession alone is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to substantiate his claim of independent tenancy rights under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19....
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....
The appellants' possession of the suit property is the settled possession and it has to be protected until they are evicted by due process of law. The respondent had lost the right to claim declarati....
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 suit for possession was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title as the plaintiff's title was not challenged, and the appellant's possessory claim was derived from a lease deed with a ....
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
