Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 803
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
Gurdial Kaur Bhullar (Deceased) By L.Rs.
Versus
Inderjit Singh Jeji
Regular Second Appeal No. 1727 of 1990,
Decided On : MARCH 1, 2006
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Adverse Possession
Headnote
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - 12 years - [Adverse Possession] - [Property Dispute] - [1998(18) All India Land Laws Reporters 614, Dr. Bhargava & Co. and Anr. v. Sh. Shyam Sunder Seth] - The court discussed the concept of adverse possession, emphasizing that it must be actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive, and maintained for the statutory period of 12 years. The possession should be in denial of the true owner's title, and permissive possession does not constitute adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
Gurdial Kaur filed a civil suit for declaration of adverse possession of a disputed house, claiming to have been in possession for 30 years without payment of rent. The suit was contested, and the trial court initially decreed in favor of Gurdial Kaur, but the first appellate court reversed the verdict.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Gurdial Kaur's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated, as she failed to prove wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and that her possession met the requirements of adverse possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether Gurdial Kaur had become the owner of the house by adverse possession, and whether the house was given to her husband for residence as an employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Gurdial Kaur's possession did not meet the legal requirements for adverse possession, as it was not actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive, and was not in denial of the true owner's title.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in Gurdial Kaur's claim of adverse possession, ordering costs to be paid throughout.
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
1. Gurdial Kaur wife of Ram Singh, resident of House No. 796/3, Mohalla Jejian, Top Khana Road, Patiala, filed Civil Suit No. 486-T, on 30.7.1983, for declaration that she is in adverse possession of the disputed house. She also claimed the relief of permanent injunction, restraining Harchand Singh Jeji defendant from interfering in her peaceful enjoyment of the house.
2. Harchand Singh Jeji died during pendency of suit and his legal representatives Jasmer Singh Jeji, etc. were brought on record, while Gurdial Kaur died during the pendency of this R.S.A. and her legal representatives were also brought on record.
3. As per averments made in the plaint, Gurdial Kaur had been in actual, physical, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the house, for the last 30 years, without payment of rent. She had spent huge amount on its repairs and had obtained electricity connection also therein, through her son, Jaswinder Singh. Water-supply and sewerage connections were also obtained by her and her family members. One Sarup Singh was also residing in a portion of the house, as her tenant. She further claimed that Harchand Singh Jeji who was an influential person had been threatening to forcibly dispossess her, and he had also started disclaiming her title over the house. She, therefore, filed the suit for declaration to the effect that she had become owner by adverse possession and asked for a decree for permanent injunction, also.
4. The suit was contested by Inderjit Singh Jeji, one of the legal representatives of Harchand Singh Jeji. He denied the claim of adverse possession of Gurdial Kaur. According to him, the house came to him through inheritance from his father Harchand Singh Jeji who was its owner. Ram Singh, husband of Gurdial Kaur, was an employee of Harchand Singh Jeji who had given this house to him (Ram Singh) for his residence till he would remain in his employment. After the death of Harchand Singh Jeji, Ram Singh ceased to be his employee, and was therefore, liable to vacate the house. It was further pleaded that Gurdial Kaur had been living in the house only being wife of Ram Singh and as Ram Singh had been in possession of the house as an employee of Harchand Singh Jeji, she was not entitled to claim ownership thereof on the basis of "adverse" possession.
5. The trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the house in dispute by adverse possession? OPP
2. Whether the house was given by Harchand Singh to Ram Singh husband of the plaintiff for residence as an employee? OPD
3. Relief.
6. The trial Court recorded findings of both the issues in favour of the Gurdial Kaur plaintiff and suit was decreed. But, the first appellate Court reversed the verdict and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her claim of adverse possession over the house.
7. The plaintiff, thereafter, came up in his regular second appeal, challenging the verdict of the first appellate Court.
8. Since regular second appeal could be heard only on a substantial question of law, the plaintiff formulated the following two questions describing those as substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the learned first appellate Court was justified in reversing the well reasoned Judgment of the learned trial Court, keeping in view the evidence available on the record?
(2) Whether the Plaintiff-appellant has succeeded in establishing her possession on the disputed Property?
9. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for both sides and have also carefully gone through the records.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate Court had reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court, without taking into consideration the evidence available on record, and this fact is, in itself, a substantial question of law. He referred to (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 179, Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) by LRs. in this re
