Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
Ram Lal, S/o. Shri Ram Karan – Appellant
Versus
Khanga Ram, S/o Shri Mali Ram – Respondent
Judgment :
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.)
The Civil First Appeal has been by the defendant-appellant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura (District Tonk) (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.01/96 (“Khanga Ram Vs. Ram Lal & Ors.”), whereby the trial court cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and dated 11.12.95.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.1(for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 and permanent injunction. Plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he is in possession of the land admeasuring 10 bigha of Khasra Nos.502/1/5, land admeasuring 2 bigha 10 biswa of Khasra No.502/1/24 (total admeasuring 12 bigha 10 biswa) situated in Village Chosla, Tehsil Malpura. He was cultivating the said land for the past more than 20 years. On the basis of adverse possession, he became owner of the land in question. Plaintiff in his plaint also mentioned that the defendant No.2 with mala fide intention and in conniva
The appellate court found that the trial court erred in cancelling the sale deed and agreement to sell, as the defendant proved ownership and possession, while the plaintiff's claim of adverse posses....
Possession must be actual, exclusive, and hostile to constitute adverse possession; mere long possession is insufficient.
Possession under an agreement to sell does not constitute adverse possession.
The court clarified that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed does not necessitate a claim for possession, and cancellation nullifies any rights conferred under the deed.
The court affirmed that merely long possession without animus possidendi does not establish adverse possession; statutory acknowledgment of other ownership negates such claims.
Agreement to sell – Suit for possession filed by vendor cannot be allowed when entire sale consideration stands paid to plaintiff and also possession in pursuance of agreement of sale executed.
A claimant must prove continuous, public, and exclusive possession for adverse possession; mere possession or an unregistered agreement does not confer title.
A plaintiff in a permanent injunction suit must prove lawful possession of the property and the defendant's interference, especially when the disputed property is unidentifiable.
Civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for cancellation of sale deeds on grounds of fraud, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless found to be perverse.
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
