SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Basant Kumar (deceased) through LRs - Appellant 
Versus
Surat Ram & Others - Respondent 
RSA No.99 of 2004
Decided on : 02-01-2025
 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Mukul Sood, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocate vice Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate

Ownership requires valid documentation; mere possession or unregistered agreements do not confer legal title.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land - The trial Court dismissed the suit, affirming that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership through an agreement and adverse possession - The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. (Paras 1-32)

(B) Ownership and Possession - The court emphasized that mere possession does not equate to ownership without proper documentation and legal title - The plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated. (Paras 28-30)

(C) Legal Documentation - The court ruled that the agreement to sell was not a valid sale deed as it was not registered, thus failing to confer ownership. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land based on an agreement to sell and adverse possession, while the defendants contested the claim, asserting their ownership.

Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate courts found that the plaintiff did not establish ownership or adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff proved ownership through the agreement and whether he could claim adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claims were unsupported by evidence and that the agreement to sell required registration to be valid.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Basant Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2003, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.78 of 1996, titled as Basant Kumar versus Deep Ram & Others.

2. By way of judgment and decree dated 8.12.2003, the appeal, preferred by the Basant Kumar, has been ordered to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

3. The said appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1996, passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.105/1 of 1987, titled as Basant Kumar versus Saloh (deceased) through LRs and Others.

4. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.06.1996, learned trial Court has dismissed the suit, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, Basant Kumar.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

6. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as per record, may be summed up, as under:-

6.1. Plaintiff Basant Kumar has filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.149, having 2/3 share, along with defendants No.1 to 23. According to him, he is also owner in possession of Khasra No. 349/362/1, measuring 0-12 Biswa, which is the part of khasra No.149, to which new khasra No. 394/362 was allotted, as per the jamabandi for the year1980-81 in Ghumarwin Khas.

6.2. In the alternative, it is the further case of the plaintiff that in case, he fails to prove that he is owner in possession vide agreement dated 22.12.1963, then, he is owner in possession of the said khasra number, by virtue of adverse possession, on the basis of defective title and suit for possession of 12 Biswansi of land bearing khasra No.394/362/1, after dismantling the house, which defendants No.1 and 2 constructed on 8.3.1987, forcibly.

6.3. In addition to this, the plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering in the suit land. The said relief has been sought on the ground that Defendant No.3 Arjun got in exchange Khasra No.149 min, measuring 2 bighas from Mangatu, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.6 to 9 and Bhotha and Makoru, who are defendants No.4 and 5, in the present lis.

6.4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 22.01.1983, Arjun executed a Sale Deed and sold 5 biswa of land comprised in Khasra No. 149min, situated in Village Ghumarwin Bazar, to the plaintiff. Dimension of land was given, in the agreement, as 28 Hath, in length, on the road side. Khakha Nazri was prepared on the site and shown, in the agreement, possession of 5 biswa was handed over to the plaintiff on the site.

6.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter, in the year 1964, plaintiff constructed a shop on it, which had duly been recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, one Roop Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.10 to 16 purchased land, on northern side, of the suit land. Plaintiff built a small house on the boundary, which was rented out to Roop Lal. The said small house is in between the house of defendants Roop Lal and Onkar.

6.6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that thereafter, the plaintiff had sold 1/3rd share, out of 5 biswa of land to Santokha, who sold the same to proforma defendants No.35 and 36. He has also constructed a shop by leaving 8 Hath from the road side between the shop built by LRs of Rup Lal and proforma defendants, in this land, comprised in khasra No.394/362/1.

6.7. It is the further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top