Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Shantisaran and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sadiq Hasan alias Nibbar and Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 169 of 2022
Decided On : 06-06-2022
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and 100 – Second Appeal - Permanent injunction - Whether disputed land is owned and possessed by plaintiff - Whether defendants have proved their right over land in dispute through adverse possession – Held, Court has held that law is settled that when both parties have led evidence, question of burden of proof poses its importance and logical conclusion can be drawn on basis of entire evidence - Law in this regard is that initial burden of proof lies on plaintiff to prove his claim, but when plaintiff has discharged his burden by proving that his ownership and possession of land, onus shifts on defendant to prove his possession and how he acquired it - In present case, plaintiff’s witnesses as well as those of defendants had stated that originally plaintiff was in possession of land - Although defendant/appellant had disputed plaintiff’s claim, they failed to plead and prove as to when did they enter into possession of land and what was nature of their possession. In these circumstances, suit was rightly decreed by learned first Appellate Court and there is no illegality in it - findings of learned First Appellate Court are based upon a thorough and proper examination and scrutiny of entire evidence available on record and, in any case, same cannot said to be perverse, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. All submissions made by learned Counsel for defendants/appellants do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Court find no good ground for admission of appeal - Second appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, Advocate who has filed a caveat on behalf of the plaintiff - respondent no. 1.
2. By means of instant second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Balrampur in Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2018 filed under Section 96 of the Code, whereby the first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur in Regular Suit No. 98 of 1987, has been allowed and the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the learned trial court has been set aside and reversed and the suit has been decreed.
3. The aforesaid suit had been filed by Late Amir Hasan, the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 1 and 2, pleading that the house and other structures existing on the land shown in the map forming a part of the plaint belong to the plaintiffs and the remains of the structures are still lying on the aforesaid land, which is an abadi land and the land continues to be in possession of the plaintiff. Some Bamboo, Mango, Shisham and Neem trees had also been planted on the aforesaid land by the plaintiff, which are still existing thereon. Three huts were existing on the land in dispute, which were being used by the plaintiff's father and were in his possession. The defendants cut down and sold away some bamboos from the plaintiff’s land and the plaintiff had lodged a first information report in police station-Maharajganj complaining about the aforesaid offence. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff was aged about 90 years and he used to reside in the Balrampur City and he used to visit the land in question occasionally. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence, the defendants were trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question and for this reason he filed a suit claiming permanent injunction.
4. The defendant nos. 3, 5 to 12 and 14 filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the description of the land in question given at the foot of the plaint is not correct and the defendants gave a site plan of the land in question, which according to them was correct. They pleaded that the plaintiff had not been residing in the village for the past about 50 years. When he used to reside in the village, a hut of the plaintiff existed on the land in question and when he started cultivation through other persons his hut also fell down and the site thereof came in possession of the answering defendants. The defendants stated that they were in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable.
5. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Amir Hasan died and his sons – the Respondents no. 1 and 2 in this Second Appeal, were substituted as plaintiffs in his place.
6. The following issues had been framed by the learned trial Court :-
2-Whether the trees etc. existing on the land in disputed had been planted by the plaintiff, if yes, then its effect?
3-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief?
7. The plaintiff as well as the defendants had led evidence and after considering the entire evidence placed by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur decided the suit holding that the plaintiffs could not prove their possession and ownership over the land in dispute. The plaint does not mention any boundaries of the land in question and the land cannot be identified by its description given in the plaint. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the aforesaid reas
Adverse possession cannot be claimed without acknowledging the true owner's title, and possession alone does not confer ownership rights without the requisite legal basis.
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of continuous, open, and hostile possession against the true owner's title, validly pleaded and established.
Claim of adverse possession requires open, continuous possession with knowledge to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence, resulting in dismissal.
The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.
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 court affirmed that land claimed as appurtenant must be essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the house, proven by long-term use, and clarified the distinctions between easementary rights and....
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....
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
