Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIM LA
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
R.S.A. No. 233 of 2002 Date of decision: 28. 3. 2014
Deepak Parkash Versus Sunil Kumar
For the Appellant:Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate.
For the Respondent: :Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party claiming adverse possession must plead and establish all necessary facts to establish adverse possession, including the exact date from which adverse possession started.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant who had started construction on the plaintiff's land. The trial court dismissed the suit for injunction but granted possession to the plaintiff due to the defendant's failure to establish adverse possession. The lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's plea of adverse possession was deficient and did not meet the legal requirements. The court emphasized the importance of pleading the exact date from which adverse possession started and held that the defendant failed to specify this date. The court also highlighted that no amount of evidence beyond pleadings can be considered, and the evidence adduced beyond the pleading would not be admissible. The court concluded that the lower Appellate Court mis-construed the provisions of law regarding adverse possession and reversed the findings of the trial Court based on a mis-appreciation of the law of adverse possession.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the plaintiff for the relief of injunction, the maintainability of the suit, the plaintiff's locus standi, and the defendant's claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of pleading and establishing all necessary facts to establish adverse possession. It held that the defendant's plea of adverse possession was deficient and did not meet the legal requirements, and the lower Appellate Court mis-construed the provisions of law regarding adverse possession.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court were set aside, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 22.4.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 21-P/1998 by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1997 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class-I, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 151/1 990.
2. The appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 89/1 and 89/2 as shown in Tatima Ex.PW-1/B bearing Khata No. 72, Khatauni No. 158, situated at Mohal Gorat, Mauza Rajpur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. was recorded in the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff. The defendant was stranger to the said land and in September, 1990, the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’) started raising a wooden shed over the suit land and also started digging it with the intention to lay fresh foundation. In alternative, the plaintiff prayed that if any part of the suit land was found underneath construction of the defendant, then the possession of the same be delivered to the plaintiff by way of demolition of the said structure.
3. The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing written statement in which preliminary objections of locus standi, estoppel, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction and valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the defendant did not specifically dispute the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff. However, it was stated that if any land of the plaintiff was found in possession of the defendant, then the defendant had perfected his title over the same by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the construction of the defendant was about 15 years back and it was open, hostile and uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was denied that the defendant raised any construction in September, 1990 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4.Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein all the preliminary objections were denied and further the averments made in the plaint were re-asserted.
5.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 13.7.1992 framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 32. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 6.Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief.
6. Both the parties led their respective evidence and the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.11.1997 dismissed the suit for injunction. However, at the same time, since the defendant has failed to establish his adverse possession, therefore, on the strength of title, the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of possession and accordingly a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land after demolition of the structure standing thereupon.
7.Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, who vide his judgment and decree dated 22.4.2002 has been pleased to allow the appeal and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed. It is against this judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the second appeal before this Court.
8.This Court on 7.6.2002 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the learned first Appellate court, while reversi
