Back
2002 Supreme(HP) 311
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
HARDEVI - Appellant
Versus
OM PARKASH - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 440 of 1994
Decided On : 11/29/2002
Mr. G.D. Verma Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for the Appellants; None for the Respondents.
The judgment emphasizes the requirements for adverse possession and clarifies the admissibility and relevance of judgments of a Criminal Court in a civil matter.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100 - State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Bans Kishore, RSA No. 228 of 1999 - Anil Bihari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi, AIR 1955 SC 566 - Nawab Been v. Sohan Singh and others, AIR 2002 HP 143
Fact of the Case:
The deceased appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming adverse possession of a land. The respondents contested the suit, denying the appellant's ownership and possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession and ownership of the land. The court also held that the appellant was not afforded sufficient chance to lead evidence, all material issues were framed, and the relief of injunction was rightly refused.
Issues: The issues included whether the appellant acquired title by adverse possession, was entitled to permanent injunction, and was estopped to sue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adverse possession requires hostile possession in denial of the true owner's title, and must be actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive, and continuous. The court also clarified the admissibility and relevance of judgments of a Criminal Court in a civil matter.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no merit or substance in the appellant's claims.
M.R. Verma, J.—This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1998 whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur dismissing the suit of the original appellant/plaintiff [now represented by his legal representatives appellants No. l(a) to l(i)] (hereafter referred to as the appellants).
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the deceased appellant instituted a suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the appellants, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 45 min/68, Khasra Nos. 998/289, 999/289 measuring 2 Kanal 17 Marlas, situate in Tika Peharwin, Tehsil Barsar, specifically detailed in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 (hereafter referred to as the suit land) had been in their adverse possession for more than 12 years at the time of institution of the suit and they have acquired the title of ownership thereto. However, in the entries in the revenue records the respondents/defendants (hereafter referred to as the respondents) are wrongly shown as owners in possession of the suit land. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in collusion with other respondents got transferred the suit land to defeat the ownership rights of the appellants and to interfere with their possession and started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit.
3. The respondents contested the suit. In the written statement, they raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, that the appellant is estopped by his act and conduct from instituting the suit, that the suit is under valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and that the appellants have no cause of action. On merits, it has been claimed that the plaintiff(s) had never been either owner or in possession of the suit land but it is in possession of respondents No. 1 and 2 as the respondents other than respondents No. 1 and 2 had sold their share in the suit land to respondents No. 1 and 2 who are now owners in possession of the suit land. Thus, the claim of the appellants has been denied in toto.
4. In the replication, the grounds of defence, as raised in the written statement, have been denied and the claim, as made out in the plaint, has been reaffirmed.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues :
1. Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP
3. If the plaintiff is not found in possession, whether he is entitled to possession? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue? OPD
5. Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
6. Relief.
6. Vide judgment dated 30.11.1987 the trial Court decided Issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 against the appellants and Issue No. 4 in favour of the respondents and as a consequence dismissed the suit.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal which has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether Courts below have acted illegally by failure to appreciate plea of adverse possession?
2. Whether the appellant has acquired ownership with respect to land in suit by way of adverse possession?
3. Whether the appellant was not afforded sufficient chance of leading his evidence.
4. Whether all the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties have not been framed and decided?
5. Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of injunction?
8. I had heard learned Counsel for the appellants but could not have-the advantage of hearing anyone for the responden
