Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1325
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L.Anand, J.
Roshan Lal
Versus
Ganpat And Ors.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1377 of 1999,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 1, 1999
Adverse possession can be established through long-standing possession, supported by evidence and circumstances, even if the boundaries mentioned in a sale deed do not exactly match the site plan due to changes over time.
Headnote:
ADVERSE POSSESSION - SALE DEED - OWNERSHIP - BOUNDARIES - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. A plaintiff must succeed or fail on their own case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case to obtain a decree. 2. In a conflict between the area and boundaries of a property, the boundaries generally prevail, but the real intention of the parties must be considered. 3. Adverse possession can be established through long-standing possession, supported by evidence and circumstances. 4. A sale deed alone may not be sufficient to establish ownership if the seller lacked the right, title, or interest in the property.
Fact of the Case:
Ganpat and Jagdish filed a suit for a declaration that a sale deed executed by Nasib Singh in favor of Roshan Lal was null and void and that they were the owners in possession of the plot in dispute. They claimed to have been in possession of the plot for 80 years, constructing a Khor, Chapper, and a well. Nasib Singh had sold the plot to Roshan Lal, who intended to dispossess the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court found that the plaintiffs had been able to prove their ownership and possession of the plot, while the sale deed executed by Nasib Singh was illegal, null, and void. The courts relied on the plaintiffs' evidence of possession, including the construction of structures and the use of the well, as well as the report of a Local Commissioner who visited the site.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the plot in dispute? 2. Whether the sale deed executed by Nasib Singh in favor of Roshan Lal was null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had established their ownership and possession of the plot in dispute through adverse possession, supported by evidence and circumstances. The sale deed executed by Nasib Singh was not sufficient to transfer ownership to Roshan Lal as Nasib Singh lacked the right, title, or interest in the property. The court also noted that the boundaries mentioned in the plaintiffs' sale deed, though not exactly matching the site plan, did not negate their ownership due to the passage of time and changes in the surrounding area.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. The sale deed executed by Nasib Singh in favor of Roshan Lal was declared null and void, and the plaintiffs' ownership and possession of the plot in dispute were confirmed.
R.L.Anand, J.
1. Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2 in the trial Court has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the Judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, who dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1993 passed by the Court of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Karnal in favour of Ganpat and Jagdish.
2. The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner:-
3. Ganpat and Jagdish, plaintiffs in the trial Court, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the registered sale deed dated 17.9.1985, Ex.P-5, executed by Nasib Singh, defendant No. 1, in favour of Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, regarding the plot in question as shown by letters ACDEG and by red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and as mentioned in the sale deed be declared null and void being not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are still owners in possession of the plot in dispute as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint and as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiff also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants No. 1 and 2 from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plot in question.
4. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that they were continuing as owners in possession of house No. 185 Ward No. 12 along with plot in front of the said house as shown in red colour and marked by letters ABCDEF for the last 80 years since the time of their fore-fathers. That the plaintiffs had constructed Khor for tethering cattle and had also constructed a Chapper in this plot for the said purpose. There is a Neem tree standing in the plot in dispute belonging to the plaintiffs. A well as also got constructed by the plaintiffs in the said premises about 45 years ago. However, the well has become dry. The plaintiffs closed this well and got a water tap fixed at their own expense and are using the same for their purpose without any hindrance or objection from anybody. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that there is a Municipal drain on two sides of the said plot, i.e. on the eastern and southern sides, and that the water of the water tap passes through the said Municipal drain on the southern side. In this manner, the plaintiffs alleged that they are owner in possession of the plot in question.
5. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 Nasib Singh sold the plot measuring 12.37 sq. yds. including one Neem tree, Khor and Chapper to defendant No. 2 Roshan Lal vide registered sale deed dated 17.9.1985 and the boundaries of the plot as given in the sale deed have been described in para 3 of the plaint. However, it was stated by the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 1 had no right, title or interest in the said plot as the same formed the subject-matter of the sale deed which was executed in their favour in the year 1932 and, since then, they are Owners in possession of the plot in question and that the sale deed dated 17.9.1985 conferred no right, title or interest in defendant No. 2.
6. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that Roshan Lal, defendant No. 2, intends to dispossess them from the plot in question under the garb of the sale deed dated 17.9.1985 and in order to achieve that object, the defendant No. 2 had filed a plan in the Municipal Committee, Gharaunda, for sanctioning the same in order to raise construction but objections were raised by the plaintiff as a result of which the defendant No. 2 could not succeed in getting the plan sanctioned from the Committee.
7. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant No. 1 Nasib Singh appeared and filed the written statement and alleged that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property and hence they had no locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit. The defendant was in possession of the suit property an
