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

1976 Supreme(Ori) 34

High Court Of Orissa
P. K. Mohanti, J.
BASANTI DEI - Appellant
Versus
BIJAYAKRUSHNA PATNAIK - Respondent
Second Appeal 362  Of  1973
Decided On : 07/12/1976

Advocates Appeared:
P.K.Misra, R.C.PATNAIK

Adverse possession commences only when the licensee's heir denies the title of the true owner.

Headnote:

ADVERSE POSSESSION - LICENSE - TERMINATION - POSSESSION BY LICENSEE'S HEIR - ADVERSE POSSESSION COMMENCES ONLY WHEN LICENSEE'S HEIR DENIES TITLE OF TRUE OWNER.

Fact of the Case:

Defendant No. 1 claimed title to the disputed land by adverse possession, alleging that her father, Trailokya Biswal, had purchased the land from the plaintiffs' ancestor and that she had been in possession of the land since her father's death, about 30 years prior to the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The Courts below disbelieved the story of purchase of the disputed land by Trailokya Biswal and held that the defendant No. 1's possession of the land continued to be permissive after her father's death, and therefore no question of adverse possession could arise.

Issues: Whether the defendant No. 1 had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Possession at the inception being permissive, it could not be converted into adverse possession as there was no proof that the defendant No. 1 asserted an adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owners at any time. 2. Even if the license terminated on the date of death of Trailokya, defendant No. 1's possession thereafter became unlawful, but mere unlawful possession does not mean adverse possession. 3. A trespasser's possession is adverse to the true owner only when the adverseness of the trespasser's claim is within the owner's knowledge. 4. There must be on the part of the trespasser an express or implied denial of title of the true owner and an animus of exclusive ownership.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendant No. 1 is against the confirming judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Dhenkanal passed in a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of 0. 55 acre of land appertaining to plot No, 3000 situated within the town area of Dhenkanal.

( 2 ) PLOTS Nos. 2999 and 3000 are adjacent to each other. In the current settlement record-of-rights finally published in December, 1965 plot No. 2999 was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and plot No. 3000 in the name of the plaintiffs, vide Exts. D and 2. The plaintiffs' case was that their ancestors had allowed the father of defendant No. 1 to possess a portion of the homestead plot No. 2999 and after his death the defendants have been residing there. During the current settlement operations there was dispute between the parties with regard to plot No. 2999 but it was ultimately recorded in the name of defendant No. 1. When the plaintiffs were contemplating to file a suit against the defendant No. 1 in respect of that plot the defendants forcibly possessed the disputed plot No. 3000 in January, 1966. So the plaintiffs filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs treating the defendants as trespassers.

( 3 ) THE defence case was that Trailokya Biswal, the father of defendant No. 1 possessed both the plots Nos. 2999 and 3000 with the permission of late lambodar Patnaik, one of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, he purchased both the plots from the said Lambodar Patnaik for a sum of Rs. 80/by an unstamped and unregistered sale deed which was lost about 40 years back when the house of the defendants was burnt by fire accident. Trailokya biswal died about 30 years prior to the suit and after his death defendant No. 1 has been in possession of the disputed land along with plot No. 2999 as before. Their alternative case was that defendant No. 1 had perfected her title by adverse possession being in continuous possession of the land for over 12 years.

( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below disbelieved the story of purchase of the disputed land by Trailokya Biswal. As regards the plea of adverse possession both the Courts concurrently held that possession at the inception being permissive it could not be converted into adverse possession as there was no proof that the defendant no. 1 asserted an adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owners at any time. Upon these findings the plaintiff's suit was decreed for the reliefs claimed.

( 5 ) MR. R. C. Patnaik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised the following contentions:

(i) That the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the defence plea that the suit land had been purchased by Trailokya Biswal; and (ii) that in view of the evidence on record that Trailokya Biswal, the licensee died about 30 years prior to the suit and that the defendant no. 1 continued to possess the suit land, the Courts below should have held that her possession became adverse to the true owners of the property since the date of death of the licensee.

( 6 ) REGARDING the first contention, it is argued that Exts. B, B-1 and C have not been properly considered by the Courts below. Exts. B and B/1 are the receipts dated 20-3-1931 and 28-1-1936 granted to Trailokya Biswal for payment of conservancy tax. Ext. C is a letter of the Tax Collector intimating Trailokya biswal that he had been exempted from payment of conservancy tax with effect from 1st April, 1941 under orders of the then Chief Minister of the Durbar administration. There is no evidence on record to connect these documents with the suit land. D. W. 4 Gourahari Biswal proved the handwritings and signatures appearing on these documents and said that he had no personal knowledge about their contents. Even assuming that the documents relate to the suit lands, they cannot be regarded as evidence of purchase. Even an occupier of the holding can pay conservancy tax. Save and except the sole uncorroborated












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top