The court established that the plea of adverse possession cannot be successful if the plaintiffs deny the defendants' ownership over the property, and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment to support its decision.

Headnote:
Delay - Property Dispute - Conveyance Deed, Sale Deeds - [Conveyance Deed, Sale Deeds] - The court discussed the validity of the conveyance deed and subsequent sale deeds, the plea of adverse possession, and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding adverse possession. The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish the conveyance deed as illegal, null, and void, and that they had no right to challenge the same. The plea of adverse possession was rejected as the plaintiffs denied the defendants' ownership over the property, and the court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that certain deeds related to a property were illegal, null, and void, and claimed ownership of the property by adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate Court affirmed the decision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish the deeds as illegal, null, and void, and rejected their plea of adverse possession based on the denial of the defendants' ownership over the property.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the conveyance deed and subsequent sale deeds, the plaintiffs' right to challenge the deeds, and the plea of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the plea of adverse possession as the plaintiffs denied the defendants' ownership over the property, and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. (Oral) -

CM No. 13540-C of 2019 in RSA No.4755 of 2019

Delay in refiling is condoned.

Application is allowed.

Main Case

1. The aforesaid two appeals are being decided together since they pertain to two civil suits filed by two sons of Shingara Ram alias Piara Ram with respect to the same property, against the same respondents/defendants claiming similar relief. Both the Courts below have decided the suit as well as the appeal by two separate but similar judgments. The facts for deciding the appeals are being taken from RSA No.4755 of 2019.

2. The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as, 'plaintiff') filed a suit seeking declaration that conveyance deed dated 04.03.1968 executed in favour of respondent-defendant No.3/ Jagjit Singh, and subsequent power of attorneys executed by him, dated 23.09.2005, in favour of respondent-defendant Nos.4 and 5 (Rozi and Kewal Kumar, respectively), and another one executed in favour of respondent-defendant Nos.6 and 7 (Narinder Kumar and Sikandar Ladhir, respectively), dated 23.12.2011, are illegal, null and void. Further, a declaration was also sought that sale deed dated 26.03.2013 executed by respondent-defendant No.3 through defendant Nos.4 to 6 in favour of respondent-defendant No.1, and subsequent sale deed dated 26.09.2012 executed by respondent-defendant No.3 through defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 in favour of defendant No.2, are sham transactions, illegal, null and void, and that plaintiff has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants by pleading that the plaintiff was tenant in the disputed premises under defendant No.3, who transferred his right, title and interest in the property in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said property was evacuee property which was purchased by defendant No.3 through conveyance deed dated 04.03.1968. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 purchased the said property from defendant No.3 by registered sale deeds dated 26.03.2013 and 26.09.2012. Ever since, defendant Nos.1 and 2 became owner as well as landlord of the property having been purchased by them by way of duly registered sale deeds and power of attorneys. Defendant No.3 also appeared and averred that he was owner of the suit property, vide conveyance deed dated 04.03.1968, executed by Managing Officer Sales, Jalandhar. He further stated that he had transferred his rights to defendant Nos.4 and 5 for the consideration received.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not legally maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

9. Relief.

5. Both the parties led their evidence before the trial Court. On consideration of the same, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2018. The same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs has been heard and paper book perused.

7. Learned counsel has contended that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute since the time of their grand-father, and have, therefore, become owners by way of adverse possession. Courts below wrongly held that plea of adverse possession could not have been taken by the plaintiffs. The finding has been recorded on the basis that no person can seek declaration of having acquired own

Click Here to Read the rest of this document