Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Most Rehan Khatoon, wife of Haider Ali and daughter of Late Saukat Ali and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Reyajuddin, S/o Late Alimuddin Mian and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No.16 of 1998 (R)
Decided On : 07-07-2022
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - [ADVERSE POSSESSION] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the concept of adverse possession and its requirements, emphasizing the need for continuity, publicity, and hostility to the true owner. It also highlighted the necessity of pleading and proving the essential facts to establish adverse possession. The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of adverse possession, and their claim had no legal basis.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that a sale-deed executed by the defendants was null and void, claiming adverse possession of the suit land. The defendants contended that they had acquired title by adverse possession and that the plaintiff had encroached upon their land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the plaintiff had encroached upon the land and dismissing the suit. The first appellate court reversed the decision, finding in favor of the plaintiff based on the existence of vacant land and adverse possession. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the first appellate court's decision.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, cause of action, limitation, adverse possession, encroachment, and the plaintiff's right, interest, and possession over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirements for establishing adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, hostility to the true owner, and the need to plead and prove essential facts. It found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of adverse possession, leading to the dismissal of their claim.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the first appellate court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls, though notice has validly been served upon them. Hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte.
3. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 02.02.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Giridih, in Title Appeal No.26 of 1996 by which the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for:-
(b) plaintiff’s right over the lands of plot No.1515 measuring area 1 decimal and the house constructed over there be declared and the plaintiff’s possession over the same be confirmed and
(c) other relief;
and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the suit land and the sale-deed dated 14.03.1990 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 with respect to plot No.1515 is not binding upon the plaintiff as the same has never been acted upon.
4. The brief fact of the case of the original plaintiff is that the suit land was the Raiyati land recorded in Survey Khatian in the name of Sher Ali Mian and the same was in possession of their father Fatuli Mian as Dar- Raiyat and Dar-Raiyat Khata was prepared in the name of the father of the plaintiff namely Fatuli Mian. Fatuli Mian constructed a house over the suit land and was living in the house constructed over the suit land and paying rent to the State of Bihar. Besides the plaintiff, Fatuli Mian had another daughter namely Bibi Muktari and a son namely Reyajuddin. The plaintiff was living in the house constructed over the suit land and was paying rent to the Raiyat Bako Khan and was also paying tax to the Giridih Municipality and obtaining rent receipt in her name. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff purchased the suit land including the vacant land and house from the son of the recorded Raiyat namely Bako Khan by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 24.01.1979 marked Ext. 1. The plaintiff apart from the house, has also left some vacant land which has been in continuous possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been running business of grocery shop in the house situated over the suit land. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 hatched a plan to grab the vacant land and house of the plaintiff and in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 3, got a forged sale-deed executed in their favour with respect to the suit land and another land of 1 decimal bearing plot No.1514 under Khata No.23 dated 14.03.1990 and on the basis of the said forged sale-deed started claiming ownership of the suit land. It is also asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no right to sell the suit land as the same was already sold by the father of the defendant No.1 namely Bako Khan on 24.01.1979 and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 has also no selling right in respect of the suit land and the defendants threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit house, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.
5. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that the brother of the Fatuli Mian namely Jhari Mian is the Dar-Raiyat in respect of 1 decimal of land of plot No.1514 under Dar-rayati Khata No.23 of Mouza Koldiha and the same was recorded in the name of Jhari Mian. The defendants admitted the case of the plaintiff that Fatuli Mian was the Dar- Raiyat of the suit land. It is the case of the defendant that both the houses of Jhari Mian and Fatuli Mian stood over the plot Nos.1514 and 1515 and since Fatuli Mian and Jhari Mian were full brothers, hence, they have admitted the said position and they never raised
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to plead and prove essential facts to establish adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, and hostility to the true owne....
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
The judgment establishes that continuous possession and proper documentation can affirm ownership, while claims of adverse possession require clear evidence and specific pleading.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
A claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if possession stems from an agreement to sell, which legally acknowledges the owner's title.
The judgment emphasizes the legal principles of adverse possession, including the requirements of open, clear, continuous, and hostile possession, burden of proof, and the need for a substantial ques....
Plaintiff can amend the plaint to claim possession based on a Survey Commissioner's report when the title of the defendant is not obstinate against clear evidence.
The court held that a title deed must be substantiated with clear evidence, and the Survey Commissioner's findings are critical in resolving land disputes.
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
