Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
MOORTI SANKAT MOCHAN BALAJI AN - Appellant
Versus
SHRI GANGARAMJI CHERITABLE TRU - Respondent
CFA / 198 / 2006
Decided On : 08-01-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 - Civil suit for eviction and mesne profit - Plaintiffs, as trustees, proved ownership of disputed property through registered sale deeds and trust documents - Defendants failed to establish adverse possession or ownership - Appeal by defendants dismissed; cross-objection by plaintiffs for mesne profit allowed. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Adverse Possession - Defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession but failed to provide cogent evidence - Court emphasized the necessity of documentary proof for claims of long-term possession. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit against defendants, asserting ownership through a chain of registered sale deeds. Defendants claimed possession based on an earlier suit, but the plaintiffs proved their title and right to possession.
Findings of Court:
The court found that plaintiffs established their ownership and the defendants did not prove their claim of adverse possession.
Issues: The main issues included the ownership of the disputed property and the validity of the defendants' claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that ownership must be established through documentary evidence, and mere claims of possession without proof are insufficient to deny rightful ownership.
Result: Appeal dismissed; cross-objection allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
1.The present civil regular first appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Jhunjhunu (for short the ‘trial Court’) in civil suit No. 31/1995 titled as “Shri Gangaramji Charitable Trust Vs. So-called Moorti Sankat Mochan Balaji and Ors.” whereby the said court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (for short ‘the plaintiffs’). S.B. Cross Objection (Civil) No. 30/2009 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu, whereby the relief sought for by the plaintiffs for granting mesne profit has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
3. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the trial court for eviction, permanent injunction and for mesne profit against the defendants with the prayer that defendants be directed to handover the possession of the plot Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs as mentioned in the plaint site plan of which was also annexed therewith which included the constructed house, shops, Balaji ka Mand etc. It was also prayed that direction be given to the defendants not to interfere in the plaintiffs’ possession over the said plots, shops etc. and to remove encroachment so made and also to grant Rs. 4,000/- for damages and Rs. 2,000/- per month for use and occupation charges till handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in their suit mentioned that Smt. Banarsi Devi was the owner of Khasra Nos. 1215 admeasuring 2 bigah 8 biswa, khasra No. 1216/1 admeasuring 4 bigah, khasra No. 1216/2 admeasuring 1 bigah 12 biswa, 1216/3 admeasuring 4 bigah 5 biswa and khasra No. 1216/1647 admeasuring 7 biswa and khasra No.1217 admeasuring 2 bigah 16 biswa. She through her Power of Attorney Holder Ram Kishore sold certain land to Smt. Chander Kala wife of Sh. Radhey Shyam by registered sale-deed dated 23.05.1973 and handed over the possession to Smt. Chander Kala. Thereafter, Smt. Chander Kala through her Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Radhey Shyam sold the disputed plots including house, shops as well as Balaji ka Mand to Shri Gurudayal and Sh. Prithvi Singh by a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1984 for a sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/- and handed over the possession to Shri Gurudayal and Prithvi Singh. Later on Prithvi Singh and Shri Gurudayal sold the disputed land to Shri Gangaramji Charitable Trust vide registered sale deed dated 06.06.1995.
4. The defendants earlier filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhunjhunu for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the defendants on 12.05.1995. Plaintiffs filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.05.1995 passed by the trial Court. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.1998 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Since, no second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs thereagainst, therefore the judgment and decree dated 12.05.1995 attained finality. It was also observed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.05.1995 that the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to file suit for possession on the basis of the registered sale deed. So, present suit was filed.
5. Defendants filed a written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiffs and categorically mentioned that possession on the disputed land was never delivered by Smt. Chander Kala to Shri Gurudayal Singh and Prithvi Singh and by Shri Gurudayal Singh and Prithvi Singh to Shri Gangaramji Charitable Trust. It was also mentioned that earlier suit No. 20/1993 filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jhunjhunu was decreed in favour of the defendants where the disputed property was held to
Ownership of property must be established through documentary evidence, and claims of adverse possession require substantial proof to be valid.
In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by High Court unless findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the conte....
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
