2006 Supreme(MP) 126
2007(2) JLJ 55
S.L. Jain, J.
Krishna Devi Shrivastava (Smt.) and others v. Ramprasad
Shrivastava and another
First Appeal No. 563 of 1997 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment and
decree of XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, passed in Civil Suit
No.543-A of 1994; Decided on 24.1.2006.
R.S. Tiwari for appellants;
S.K. Shrivastava for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Possession -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- S.27 Art. 65 -- acquiring title by adverse possession -- voluntarily and amicably giving-up possession is no dispossession -- exclusive possession to ouster of plaintiff not established -- adverse possession not established.
Mahadeo Prasad and Sharda Prasad were real brothers. Sharda Prasad had three sons namely plaintiff Ram Prasad, defendant No.4, Shiv Prasad and Jawala Prasad. Laxmi Devi was the wife of Mahadeo Prasad. Smt. Laxmi Devi purchased the suit plot and constructed house on the half portion and remaining half portion remained vacant.... Laxmi Oevi died issueless in the year 1973. Thereafter, Jwala Prasad continued to live in the suit house. Plaintiff and defendant No.4 never objected to it.
Plaintiff Ram Prasad filed a suit alleging that he, defendant No.4 and Jwala Prasad each have 1/3rd share in the suit property, they being the successor of deceased Laxmi Devi. It is alleged that Jwala Prasad filed a suit against Laxmi Devi and Mahadevo Prasad alleging that the suit house was purchased jointly by Mahadeo Prasad and Jwala Prasad in the name of Laxmi Devi. The suit was decreed and it was held that Laxmi Devi was the owner of only 2/3rd portion in. the suit house and Jwala Prasad was the owner of 1/3rd portion. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he was not a party in Civil Suit No.97-N69 therefore the decree in that suit does not bind him. [Paraas 2 & 3
The trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and held that in view of the judgment passed in Civil Suit No.97-N69 Laxmi Devi had 2/3rd share in the suit house. In this 2/3rd share of Laxmi Devi, Ram Prasad, Shiv Prasad and Jwala Prasad each had 1/3rd share, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property and is entitled to get the possession of the 2/9th share after partition. [Para 9
Held: The principle of adverse possession is derived from the classical requirement that in order to give a title by adverse possession, the possession must be nec-vi,nec clam, nec procario, i.e., peaceful, open and continuous. Where the plaintiff went on asking for the possession asserting his title, it cannot be said that Jwala Prasad or his successors perfected their title by adverse possession. Merely because the pbhysical possession of the plaintiff discontinued, it cannot be said that he was dispossessed after the death of Laxmi Devi. The difference between dispossession and the discontinuance of possession might be expressed in this way -- the one is where a person comes in and drives out the others from possession; the other case is where the person in possession goes out and is followed into possession by other persons. Voluntarily and amicably giving up of possession is not dispossession. Therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff was dispossessed by Jwala Prasad and his successors and they were in the exclusive possession of the suit house to the ouster of the plaintiff and the finding of the trial Court in this regard is unimpeachable. [Para 26 "
(2) Possession -- "adverse possession" means a hostile possession -- expressly implied in denial of litle of the owner. [Para 24
(3) Possession -- mutation of property in one‘s name -- does not establish his exclusive possession to the ouster of other co-owners. [Para 25
(4) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S.27 and Art. 65 -- possession of one co-owner is prima facie no adverse to other co-owner -- doc trine is applicable to heirs also -- suit by heir against other heirs -- is governed by Art. 65 -person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. [Para 23
(5) Partition -- co-owner can file a suit for partition at any time. [Para 21
¼1½ dCtk && ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 27 vuq-65 && izfrdwy dCts }kjk gd dk vtZu && LosPNk ls rFkk lkSgknZiw.kZ rkSj ij dCtk fn;k tkuk csdCtk gksuk ugha gS && oknh dks csn[ky dj ds dCtk ysuk LFkkfir ugha && izfrdwy dCtk LFkkfir ughaA
egknso izlkn vkSj ‘kkjnk izlkn lxs HkkbZ FksA ‘kkjnk izlkn ds rhu iq= Fks ftuds uke oknh jkeizlkn] izfroknh Ø-4] f‘koizlkn rFkk Tokyk izlknA y{kehnsoh egknso izlkn dh iRuh FkhA Jherh y{ehnsoh us oknkarxZr Hkw&[kaM Ø; fd;k vkSj mlds vk/ks Hkkx ij edku dk fuekZ.k fd;k vkSj ‘ks"k vk/kk Hkkx [kkyh jgkA ---- y{eh nsoh dh o"kZ 1973 esa larfr ds fcuk e`R;q gqbZA rRi‘pkr~] Tokyk izlkn okn edku esa lrr fuokl djrk jgkA oknh rFkk izfroknh Ø-4 }kjk dHkh&Hkh ml ij vk{ksi ugha fd;kA
oknh jkeizlkn }kjk ;g vfHkdfFkr djrs gq, okn Qkby fd;k x;k fd og] izfroknh Ø-4 rFkk Toky izlkn] e`rd y{eh nsoh ds okfjl gksus ds dkj.k] izR;sd dk okn laifÙk esa 1@3 va‘k gSA ;g vfHkdfFkr gS fd Tokyk izlkn us y{eh nsoh rFkk egknso izlkn ds fo:) ;g vfHkdfFkr djrs gq, okn Qkby fd;k fd okn edku egknso izlkn rFkk Tokyk izlkn }kjk y{eh nsoh ds uke la;qDr :i ls Ø; fd;k x;k FkkA okn fMØhr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd y{eh nsoh okn edku esa ek= 2@3 Hkkx dh Lokeh Fkh rFkk Tokyk izlkn 1@3 Hkkx dk Lokeh FkkA oknh dk vfHkdFku gS fd og flfoy okn Ø-97&,@69 esa i{kdkj ugha Fkk] vr%] ml okn esa fMØh ml ij vk/;dj ugha gSA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 3
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk 8 fook|d fojfpr fd, x, rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd flfoy okn Ø-97&,@69 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dh n`f"V ls] y{eh nsoh dk okn edku esa 2@3 va‘k FkkA y{keh nsoh ds bl 2@3 va‘k esa] jke izlkn] f‘ko izlkn rFkk Tokyk izlkn] izR;sd dk 1@3 va‘k Fkk] vr%] oknh okn laifÙk esa 1@3 va‘k dk gdnkj gS rFkk foHkktu ds i‘pkr~ 2@9 va‘k dk dCtk ikus dk gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 9
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izfrdwy dCts dk fl)kar bl Js.; vis{kk ls O;qRiUu gS fd izfrdwy dCts ls gd nsus ds fy,] dCtk usd oh] usd Dyse] usd izksdsfj;k] vFkkZr~] ‘kkafriw.kZ] [kqyk rFkk fujarj gksuk pkfg,A tgk¡ oknh vius gd dk izk[;;ku djrs gq, dCtk ek¡xrk jgk] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Toky izlkn vFkok mlds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk viuk gd izfrdwy dCts }kjk ifjiDo fd;k x;kA ek= blfy, fd oknh dk HkkSfrd dCtk vlrr jgk] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd og y{eh nsoh dh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ csdCtk gqvkA csdCtk rFkk vlrr dCts dk varj.k bl izdkj vfHkO;Dr fd;k tk ldrk gS & izFke og gS tc dksbZ O;fDr vkrk gS rFkk vU; dks csdCtk djrk gS] vU; n‘kk og gS tgk¡ dCtk/kkjh O;fDr ckgj tkrk gS rFkk vU; O;fDr;ksa }kjk dCtk fd;k tkrk gSA LosPNk ls rFkk lkSgknZiw.kZ rkSj ij dCtk fn;k tkuk csdCtk fd;k tkuk ugha gSA blfy, ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd oknh dks Tokyk izlkn o mlds mÙkjkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk csdCtk fd;k x;k vkSj os oknh ds csdCtk gksus ds dkj.k okn edku ds vuU; dCts esa Fks vkSj bl laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vf/k{ksiuh; gSA ¼iSjk 26
¼2½ dCtk && ^^izfrdwy dCtk** && vFkZ gS fojks/kh dCtk && okLrfod Lokeh ds gd ds izR;k[;ku esa vfHko;Dr :i ls foof{krA ¼iSjk 24
¼3½ dCtk && fdlh ,d ds uke laifÙk dk ukekarj.k && vU; lg&Lokfeksa dh csn[kyh ds fy, mldk vuU; dCtk LFkkfir ugha djrkA ¼iSjk 25
¼4½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 27 rFkk vuq-65 && ,d lg&Lokeh dk dCtk vU; lg&Lokeh ds izFken`"V~;k izfrdwy ugha gS && fl)kar okfjlksa ij Hkh ykxw gS && ,d okfjl }kjk vU; okfjlksa ds fo:) okn && vuq-65 }kjk vf/k‘kkflr gS && izfrdwy dCts dk vfHkopu djus okys O;fDr ds i{k esa dksbZ lkE;k ugha gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 23
¼5½ foHkktu && lg&Lokeh fdlh Hkh le; foHkktu ds fy, okn Qkby dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 21
1. Invoking appellate jurisdiction of this Court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appellants have filed this appeal challenging the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1997, passed by XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.543-A/94 decreeing respondents-plaintiffs claim to the extent of 2/9th share in the property left behind by Smt. Laxmi Devi.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal in nutshell are that Mahadeo Prasad and Sharda Prasad were real brothers. Sharda Prasad had three sons namely plaintiff Ram Prasad, defendant No.4, Shiv Prasad and Jawala Prasad. Laxmi Devi was the wife of Mahadeo Prasad. Smt. Laxmi Devi purchased the suit plot and constructed house on the half portion and remaining half portion remained vacant. As the parents of plaintiff, defendant No.4 and Jwala Prasad died when they were quite young, they started living with their paternal uncle Mahadevo Prasad. Jwala Prasad was transferred to Pune but his family remained with Mahadevo Prasad. Defendant No.5 Shiv Prasad was transferred to Bhopal. Jwala Prasad continued to live in the newly constructed house of Smt. Laxmi Devi along with Mahadeo Prasad and Laxmi Devi. After retirement, plaintiff, Ram Prasad started living in a separate house at J abalpur. Defendant No.4, Shiv Prasad was also living separately. Jwala Prasad alone continued to live with Laxmi Devi. Laxmi Devi died issueless in the year 1973. Thereafter, Jwala Prasad continued to live in the suit house. Plaintiff and defendant No.4 never objected to it.
3. Plaintiff Ram Prasad filed a suit alleging that he, defendant No.4 and Jwala Prasad each have 1/3rd share in the suit property, they being the successor of deceased Laxmi Devi. It is alleged that Jwala Prasad filed a suit against Laxmi Devi and Mahadevo Prasad alleging that the suit house was purchased jointly by Mahadeo Prasad and Jwala Prasad in the name of Laxmi Devi. The suit was decreed and it was held that Laxmi Devi was the owner of only 2/3rd portion in the suit house and Jwala Prasad was the owner of 1/3rd portion. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he was not a party in Civil Suit No.97-A/69, therefore, the decree in that suit does not bind him. It was also pleaded by plaintiff Ram Prasad that under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the property in the suit remained to be the property of Laxmi Devi. Her property devolved according to the provisions of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.
4. The plaintiff in the alternative also pleaded that even if it is accepted that Mahadeo Prasad, Laxmi Devi and Jwala Prasad were the joint owner of the property in dispute and each were having 1/3rd share, after the death of Mahadeo Prasad, his share devolved to Laxmi Devi and she became the owner of 2/3rd share of the property. In this 2/3rd share of the property, the plaintiff, defendant No.4 and Jwala Prasad each are having 1/3rd share.
5. The suit was opposed by the successors of Jwala Prasad. Defend -- No.4 Shiv Prasad remained ex parte. The successors of Jwala Prasad pleaded that the plaintiff was the step brother of Jwala Prasad. Mother of Jwala Prasad died in the year 1920. At that time the age of Jwala Prasad was only 3 years, thereafter, Sharda Prasad remarried. In this wedlock, plaintiff, defendant No.2 and their two sisters were born. Mahadeo Prasad realizing that Jwala Prasad is a boy without mother, took him under his protection as he himself was issueless. Mahadeo Prasad and Laxmi Devi considered Jwala Prasad as their own son. Mahadeo Prasad, Laxmi Devi and Jwala Prasad constituted a Hindu joint family but because of the misunderstanding created by plaintiff Ram Prasad and other interested persons, Smt. Laxmi Devi filed a suit against Jwala Prasad which was registered as Civil Suit No.97-A/69 and the same was dismissed on 18.10.1970. Appeal against that decree was also dismissed on 11.12.1978.
6. Successors