Back
2019 Supreme(All) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
Nisar Ahmad And Another - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Aziz And Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1389 of 1980
Decided on : 03-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Haji Iqbal Ahmad, Adv., Himanhsu Pandey, Adv., Ikram Ahmad, Adv., S.N. Pandey, Adv., Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Adv., A.N. Bhargava, Adv., Puneet Bhadauria, Adv.
Possession does not confer title, and a valid title document overrides mere possession.
Headnote:
CPC - Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Plaintiffs' appeal under Section 100 of CPC - Acts and sections referenced: Sale-deed dated 24.06.1949, Khasra Khatauni, Ext. A-1 and A-2 of the year 1366-F, Ext. 61 A/2, khasra extract of 1379 F, khasra extract of 1380 F, khasra extract of 1379 F, khatauni extract of 1366 F, khatauni extract of 1349 F - Summary: The court discussed the validity of the sale-deed, joint ownership of the disputed land, and the relevance of revenue records as evidence of possession and title. The court emphasized that possession does not confer title and that a valid title document overrides mere possession. The court cited legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought a prohibitory injunction against defendants to prevent interference in their possession of disputed land. Defendants claimed joint ownership based on a sale-deed dated 24.06.1949. Plaintiffs argued that they were the sole owners in possession and had matured their title through adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The Lower Appellate Court (LAC) dismissed the suit, holding that the sale-deed demonstrated joint ownership and that plaintiffs failed to establish their case justifying injunction.
Issues: The issues included ownership and possession of the disputed land, the maintainability of the suit, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that possession does not confer title and that a valid title document overrides mere possession. It cited legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
This is a plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") arising from judgment and decree dated 22.02.1980 passed by Sri Harish Chandra, District Judge, Etah in Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1977 which has been allowed by Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") and judgment and decree dated 26.06.1977 passed by Sri Chottey Lal, Munsiff, Etah in Original Suit (hereinafter referred to as "OS") No. 281 of 1973 has been set aside and suit has been dismissed.
2. The appeal was admitted on following three substantial questions of law:-
"(A) Whether disclosure of the evidence is essential in plaint and was Lower Appellate Court justified in observing that plaint did not contain source of title of plaintiff.
(B) Whether Lower Appellate Court was justified in ignoring material documents and dismissing plaintiff's suit after misconstruing evidence.
(C) Was the decree of Lower Appellate Court is illegal?"
3. Facts in brief, giving rise to the present dispute, are that plaintiffs, Nisar Ahmad and Siraj Ahmad, both real brothers and sons of Abdul Jamil, resident of Ganj Dundwara, Mohalla Mansoor Pargana Patiyali, District Etah, instituted OS No. 281 of 1973 in the Court of Munsiff, Etah impleading six defendants i.e. Abdul Aziz, Abdul Majid, Abdul Hafiz, Abdul Habib, Abdul Rashid and Abdul Bashir, all real brothers and sons of Abdul Kadir, seeking a prohibitory injunction against defendants so that they should not interfere in plaintiffs' possession over land, bearing plot no. 1209, area 36 decimal.
4. The case set up by plaintiff vide plaint dated 09.07.1973 is that disputed land was plaintiffs' father cultivatory holding and after his death, plaintiffs have succeeded the said land and are in exclusive possession thereof. Defendants have no claim, right or interest in the said land. Plaintiffs started digging foundation for raising a boundary wall on disputed land, boundary whereof are given at the bottom of the plaint. Defendants, however, forcibly and illegally are attempting to take possession of disputed land and creating obstruction in raising boundary wall. Plaintiffs repeatedly requested defendants to refrain from such interference but they have not paid any heed, hence, suit for injunction.
5. Defendants-1 to 3 i.e. Abdul Aziz, Abdul Mazid and Abdul Hafiz collectively filed written statement dated 07.09.1973. They denied claim of plaintiffs and stated that Arazi No. 1209 was in ownership of Akbar Shah and Asgar Shah who executed a sale-deed on 24.06.1949 in favour of Abdul Kadir and since then he and his successors are in possession of disputed property. Foundation was laid by defendants about 12 years back in 1962 and on the said old foundation, boundary wall was raised in June, 1973. Since aforesaid construction was raised by defendants without sanction of map by Nagar Palika, Ganjdundwara, hence, construction was stopped by Nagar Palika vide notice dated 22.06.1973 issued to defendants. Plaintiffs have no claim over said land and not entitled for any relief.
6. Replication dated 13.12.1973 was filed by plaintiffs stating that plaintiffs' father Abdul Jamil was a Shikmi Kashtkar on the disputed land and Revenue record had such entry. Subsequently converted the status to Sirdar. Alleged sale-deed dated 24.06.1949 is relied by defendants is void document and not binding on plaintiffs who are since long, owner in possession of disputed land. Alleged notice issued by Nagar Palika is a collusive act on the part of Nagar Palika and its officials. It cannot give any advantage to defendants. No construction was raised by defendants. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs are in possession over disputed land for the last more than 12 years and, therefore, have also matured their title by way of "adverse possession".
7. Trial Court formulated following five issues as under:-
"i. Whether plaintiffs are the owner in possession over the disputed land?
ii. Whether th
