Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Rajbir - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
CR-2510 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-07-2022
Adverse Possession - Suit for Declaration and Possession - The court found that the defendants had raised a plea of adverse possession, and the trial court did not commit any illegality in striking the issue and placing the onus of proof upon the defendants. The court also noted that the defendants would not be able to get a decree for declaration with regard to their title based on adverse possession in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendants, who contested the suit by claiming adverse possession of the suit land for more than 12 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not commit any illegality in striking the issue of adverse possession and placing the onus of proof upon the defendants. The revision petition challenging the trial court's order was found to be without merit and dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants' possession of the suit land had become adverse and ripened into ownership, and whether the trial court's decision to strike the additional issue was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court did not err in striking the issue of adverse possession and placing the onus of proof upon the defendants. It also noted that the defendants would not be able to obtain a decree for declaration with regard to their title based on adverse possession in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The revision petition challenging the trial court's order was found to be without merit and dismissed.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan, J. (Oral) - Petitioner Rajbir, is plaintiff in a suit for declaration and possession filed against defendant Ashok Kumar and others, which suit the defendants are contesting statedly raising plea that they have been in continuous uninterrupted possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and their such possession has ripened into ownership. Initially issues were struck by the trial Court, vide order dated 15.02.2017. Thereafter the defendants came up with an application for framing of an additional issue with regard to plea of adverse possession having been taken up by them. Though that application was contested by the plaintiff vehemently but it was allowed by the trial Court, and an additional issue No.8 was struck as follows:-
"Whether the defendants are in physical continuous possession of the suit land since 15.03.1997 without paying any rent to the owner and their possession has become adverse and the defendants have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD."
2. Framing of this issue left the plaintiff aggrieved, and he has filed the present revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff besides going through the record.
4. Undisputedly, the defendants had raised a plea in the written statement with regard to they being in physical continuous possession of the suit land since 15.03.1997 without payment of rent to the owner and their possession being adverse, resultantly ripening into ownership. The trial Court does not seem to have committed any illegality or infirmity in striking issue in that regard placing onus of proof upon the defendants. If the defendants have taken up a specific plea which was controverted by the plaintiff and the trial Court felt that the parties were at issue in that regard striking of issue in that respect cannot be held to be wrong. Of course unless the defendants filed a counter claim, they will not be able to get a decree for declaration with regard to their title based on adverse possession in a suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiff.
5. Under the circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order, and the revision petition challenging the same is found to be without merit, and is dismissed accordingly.
The court affirmed the principle that the onus of proof for adverse possession lies with the party claiming adverse possession, and that adverse possession cannot be used to obtain a decree for decla....
A person who has set a title in himself cannot be permitted to alternatively plea perfection of title by adverse possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adverse possession, including the need for peaceful, open, and continuous possession, as well as the animus possidendi to hold ....
A claim of adverse possession can be established when the possessor has openly asserted ownership for 12 years without interruption, despite initial permissive circumstances.
It is settled that necessary ingredients of adverse possession are required to be specifically pleaded and necessary factual foundation in support thereof is to be made out. Equally important is nece....
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....
To establish adverse possession, the claimant must specifically plead and prove a hostile assertion of ownership, disclaiming the original title from a particular date, which was not accomplished her....
Point of Law : It is trite that court while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is required to consider contents of plaint and documents relied upon by plaintiff whereas defence di....
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
