Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Asha Jindal - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Kirna Rani and Others - Respondents - Respondent
RSA No.304 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Adverse Possession - Property Dispute - Sale Deeds - [Sale of Property, Adverse Possession] - [Dagadabai vs. Abbas (2017) 13 SCC 705, Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur (2019) 8 SCC 729] - The court discussed the plea of adverse possession and emphasized the need for the defendant to first admit the ownership of the true owner and prove the adverse possession with adequate evidence. The court also highlighted the requirements for adverse possession, including continuity, publicity, and hostility towards the true owner. The defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove adverse possession, and the sale deeds in favor of the plaintiff were not challenged by the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of properties based on sale deeds, claiming ownership. The defendants contested, alleging an oral family settlement and adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The defendant No.2-appellant preferred a regular second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to prove adverse possession and provide substantial evidence. The sale deeds in favor of the plaintiff were not challenged by the defendant. The concurrent findings of fact by both courts below were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Ownership, Adverse Possession, Limitation, Valuation of Suit Property
Ratio Decidendi: The defendant must first admit the ownership of the true owner and prove adverse possession with adequate evidence. Adverse possession requires continuity, publicity, and hostility towards the true owner. The defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove adverse possession.
Final Decision: The regular second appeal, devoid of merit, was dismissed. Pending applications were also disposed of.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.2-appellant against the judgments and decrees dated 20.11.2018 and 09.12.2021 passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession of the Chubaras as described fully in the plaint on the basis of two sale deeds dated 19.06.2009 and 16.03.2015. It was averred by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that originally Sanjiv Kumar, the brother of defendant No.1 (since deceased), was the owner in possession of two shops situated on Sangrur Road on the basis of sale deeds dated 04.12.1989. It was further the case that Sanjiv Kumar purchased the shops from one Niwas Chaudhary and thereafter constructed two Chubaras over the said shops. It was further the case that Sanjiv Kumar sold one of the shops measuring 251 sq. feet vide registered sale deed no.1003 dated 19.06.2009 along with Chubara and also sold another shop measuring 25.86 sq. yards along with Chubara vide sale deed no.2783 dated 16.03.2015. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 claimed herself to being the owner of the shops and Chubaras on the basis of the two registered sale deeds executed in her favour by the original owner. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 further averred that the defendant No.2-appellant and defendant No.1 (since deceased) were in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Chubaras constructed on the two shops purchased by her from Sanjiv Kumar. The defendant No.2-appellant and defendant No.1 (since deceased) filed a joint written statement and took the stand that they were not in possession of any property mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. It was further averred that a false story had been concocted in connivance with Sanjiv Kumar and that actually the property had been purchased by Bhim Sain Jindal, father of Sanjiv Kumar and defendant No.1 (since deceased), vide two sale deeds dated 04.12.1989 even though the same were got executed in the name of Sanjiv Kumar. It was further the stand that defendant No.1 (since deceased) constructed a residential portion on the shops purchased by Bhim Sain Jindal on the basis of the said sale deeds about 25 years back and since then they have been residing in the residential portion. It was further the stand that in an oral family settlement the residential portion fell to the share of Kanta Devi, mother of defendant No.1 (since deceased), and with the help of his mother he had constructed the residential portion and Kanta Devi was residing with the family of defendant No.1 (since deceased). It was further the stand that Sanjiv Kumar had no concern with the adjoining shop of Tarsem Lal and also with the first floor of the shops purchased by Bhim Sain Jindal and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and her husband were well aware of this fact and that Kanta Devi was the owner of the shop adjoining the shop of Tarsem Lal. The further stand taken by the defendants was that defendant No.2-appellant was in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession of the residential portion existing on the first floor for the last more than 20 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and had thus become owner by way of adverse possession. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the present suit is within limitation ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? If so its effect ? OPD
4. Relief.
3. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2018 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree both the defendants jointly preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2021. The present regular second appeal has been preferred only
The defendant must admit the ownership of the true owner and prove adverse possession with adequate evidence.
The burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the defendant, who must admit the ownership of the true owner and involve the true owner in the suit to establish adverse possession. Substantial ....
Failure to establish adverse possession and inability to impeach the title of the plaintiff led to the dismissal of the appeal.
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....
The burden of proof to establish adverse possession lies with the party claiming it, requiring clear evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period.
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
