Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Avtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh and Others – Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 199 of 2012
Decided On : 08-11-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. C.L. Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Cheema.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to establish adverse possession, the party in possession of immovable property must demonstrate animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the true owner. Mere long possession without the necessary animus does not constitute adverse possession.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - The court discussed the principles of adverse possession and the requirements to establish adverse possession under the Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65. It highlighted the need for animus possidendi and the continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile nature of possession to establish adverse possession. The court also emphasized the burden of proof on the party claiming adverse possession and the necessity of pleading and proving the required ingredients to establish adverse possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land and filed a suit for possession against the defendants who asserted adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, accepting the defendants' claim of adverse possession. The appellate court reversed the decision, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish adverse possession as they did not prove the required elements, including animus possidendi and hostile, continuous possession. The court emphasized that mere long possession without the necessary animus does not constitute adverse possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants had acquired ownership of the land through adverse possession and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession as they did not demonstrate the necessary animus possidendi and hostile, continuous possession. It emphasized the burden of proof on the party claiming adverse possession and the requirement to plead and prove the required ingredients to establish adverse possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court and emphasizing that the law relating to the principle governing adverse possession is well settled.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
1. This is appeal by Avtar Singh, one of the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs Jasbir Singh and others and decreed their suit for possession as owners of land measuring 7 marlas 5 sarsahi comprised in khasra no. 1714/1388/1 to 855 (2-0) situated in village Pandori, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, as shown red in Naksha Tafabat (Ex.P4), after removal of super-structure thereon.
2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that they are owners of land measuring 3 kanals 0 marlas in khewat no. 65, Khatauni No. 153, khasra Nos. 1714/1388/1 to 855 (2-0), 1423/1 to 855/1 (1-0) situated in village Pandori, H.B. No. 39, Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur. The defendants, who have got no right/title over the suit land, forcibly took possession of 0 kanals 12 marlas out of total land, about two years before filing of the suit. They were repeatedly requested to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit land but they refused. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendants contested the claim of plaintiffs raising the plea that the suit is barred by limitation and they have become owner of the suit land which as per them is 0 kanals 7 marlas, by way of adverse possession. While elaborating their plea, they averred in para 2 of the written statement as follows:-
“In fact, the suit land measuring about 0-7 Mls. was a big pond and it was adjoining to the haveli of deft. Some times cattle of the predecessors of the defendants were used to fall in that pond. Being aggrieved from this pond the predecessors of defendants had requested the predecessors of plaintiff to fill it with earth but they were putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. Being aggrieved from the part of the predecessors of plaintiff, the defendants predecessors started to fill that pond with earth with their own cart and they had thrown about 100 (hundred) carts in that pond and made it level to their own haveli which is situated in Khasra No. 1261/1 to 855(0-2), 1713/1388(1-19) adjoining to the suit land and constructed two pucca khurlis, pucca sheds and raised a boundary wall by encroaching upon the suit land in the year 1970. Later on the plaintiffs predecessors have also raised a cattle shed on their side on the said wall and made it a common wall of defendants predecessors and plaintiffs predecessors. The plaintiffs predecessors had completely abondened (sic abandoned) the suit land since the year 1970 and they had never made any attempt to get back the possession of the suit land up-till now from the defendants as well as their predecessors except the present suit. The possession of the predecessors of the defendants and after the death of predecessors of defendants the possession of answering defendants is peaceful, long about 32 years old, undisputed and hostile to the knowledge of plaintiffs as well as their predecessors so in this way the answering defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession.”
4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya upheld the plea of defendants that their possession over the suit land is hostile uninterrupted, to the knowledge of plaintiffs and has matured into title. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and the counter claim filed by the defendants was decreed and they were declared owners of the suit land measuring 7 marlas by way of adverse possession.
5. In appeal, learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur observed that defendants have neither pleaded nor proved the ingredients to prove their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has argued that the defendants have been continuing in possession of the suit land since 1970. The statements of plaintiff Jasbir Singh and his witness duly proves that the possessi
