The court affirmed that merely long possession without animus possidendi does not establish adverse possession; statutory acknowledgment of other ownership negates such claims.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of filing the instant Civil Second Appeal, the appellants seek quashing of the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pali, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 21/2011, whereby the learned Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2011 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bali, District Pali, in Civil Suit No. 236/1998 (14/1997). By the said judgments, the suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs were dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the husband/father of the appellants, Late Shri Banshi Lal, instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of Sale Deed No. 290/1992 dated 24.09.1992, executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1, Kanheya Lal, alleging that the said transaction was void and inoperative against his lawful rights and possession.

2.1 It was the case of the plaintiff that he was the lawful owner and possessor of a residential plot situated at Bhadwada Mohalla, Phalna Station, upon which he had constructed a dwelling house comprising one room, a kitchen, an “ora,” and a surrounding boundary wall. The said construction, as per the plaintiff, had been duly approved by the then Executive Officer, Municipality, Khudala Phalna, who also issued a sanctioned map in this regard.

2.2 The plaintiff asserted that the land in question was originally revenue land recorded in Khasra No. 352 in his name, and that his long-standing possession had been recognized in Civil Case No. 1611/1982 (State vs. Badri Lal @ Banshi Lal Acharya). After due inquiry, the competent authority held that the disputed house was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and that he was in continuous possession for several decades, using it for residential purposes. Consequently, the Tehsildar, Bali, vide order dated 21.04.1982, regularized the plaintiff’s possession upon deposit of the prescribed fee of Rs. 5/-.

2.3 Despite this regularization, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 05.10.1990 under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The plaintiff submitted his reply, whereupon the notice was withdrawn acknowledging his lawful possession, and the proceedings were dropped.

2.4 Nevertheless, in complete disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, respondent No. 2 executed Sale Deed No. 290/1992 dated 24.09.1992 in favour of respondent No. 1, purporting to convey title over the very same plot. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had no lawful authority or ownership rights to execute the said deed, rendering it null and void ab initio.

2.5 The plaintiff came to know about the impugned sale deed when respondent No. 1 instituted a separate civil suit against him. The plot, according to the plaintiff, formed an integral part of his residential house, bounded on the east by a public way and on the west by a narrow street (gali). The Commissioner’s Report and the site map dated 31.01.1996 submitted in Civil Suit No. 9/1996 corroborated the plaintiff’s possession over the disputed property.

2.6 Upon learning of the sale transaction, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon both defendants demanding cancellation of the sale deed, but to no avail. Consequently, he instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that Sale Deed No. 290/1992 be cancelled and declared null and void, being executed without jurisdiction and in derogation of his vested rights.

2.7 The respondent/defendant No. 1 filed a written statement, categorically denying the allegations. It was contended that the land purchased was Abadi land, lawfully owned and possessed by respondent No. 2, which had been purchased by respondent No. 1 through a valid sale d