1. Suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction regarding land claimed by plaintiff through long possession. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1793
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
MOTIRAM BAJIRAO PATIL. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAH.THRO.G.P. – Respondent
SA/320/1995
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S B. Deshpande, P. A. Deshpande, S.P. Tiwari
For the Respondents: V S Badakh, S. V. Dixit
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S B. Deshpande, P. A. Deshpande, S.P. Tiwari
For the Respondents: V S Badakh, S. V. Dixit
Independent title and adverse possession are contradictory pleas. Presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable by evidence of title. Adverse possession against the State requires proof of continuous, open, and hostile possession for a statutory period exceeding 30 years.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 110 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 112 - Burden of proof as to ownership - Presumption of title based on possession is a rebuttable presumption. Such presumption arises only when facts disclose that no title vests in any party and the possession is not prima facie wrongful. This presumption can be displaced if the defendant establishes a beneficial title through satisfactory evidence, such as revenue records. (Paras 15, 18)
(B) Pleadings - Contradictory Pleas - A claim of independent title and a claim of title by adverse possession at the same time amount to contradictory and self-destructing pleas. A party cannot be allowed to rest its claim on such mutually exclusive assertions. (Para 11)
(C) Adverse Possession - To establish title by adverse possession, the possession must be peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile, expressly or impliedly denying the title of the true owner. When the suit is against the government, the period of possession to be established is exceeding thirty years, as opposed to twelve years for private individuals, in accordance with the limitation period prescribed for the government. (Paras 20, 23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction regarding a plot, asserting possession by ancestors for 150 to 200 years. The plaintiff relied on a village panchayat resolution and mutation records. The State contended that the land was public land meant for government schemes and that the plaintiff was an encroacher. The Trial Court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to the present second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence of continuous possession and relied solely on vague oral testimony. Revenue records established the land as government-owned, which rebutted any presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff's simultaneous plea of independent title and adverse possession was held to be legally unsustainable.
Issues: Whether long possession raises a presumption of title under Section 110 of the Evidence Act in the face of government records; whether simultaneous pleas of independent title and adverse possession are maintainable; and whether the plaintiff established the requisite hostile possession for 30 years against the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable and cannot prevail over established revenue records showing the State as the owner. It further held that independent title and adverse possession are contradictory pleas. Due to the nature of government property, a stringent requirement of 30 years of continuous, hostile possession must be proven to succeed in a claim of adverse possession against the State.
Result: Second Appeal stands dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether long possession raises presumption of title or whether adverse possession is pleadable alongside independent title. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Plaintiff's plea of independent title and adverse possession are contradictory. Long possession alone insufficient for presumption of title against government. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. A plaintiff cannot simultaneously claim independent title and adverse possession; these are self-destructive pleas. (Para 11 )
5. Second appeal dismissed. Interim relief to continue for twelve weeks. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
6. Can a plaintiff simultaneously claim independent title and title by adverse possession?
No, claiming independent title and adverse possession at the same time amounts to self-destructive and contradictory pleas, as held by the Supreme Court. (Para 11 )
7. Does Section 110 of the Evidence Act create an irrebuttable presumption of ownership from possession?
No, the presumption is rebuttable and arises only when no title vests in any party and possession is not prima facie wrongful. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. What are the essential requirements for establishing title by adverse possession?
The claimant must prove the date of possession, its nature, knowledge to the true owner, continuous duration, and open and undisturbed possession. (Para 20 , 21 )
9. Is there a difference in proving title against the government compared to a private individual?
Yes, a longer period of thirty years of possession must be established to succeed in a declaratory suit for title against the government. (Para 23 )
10. Can long possession alone establish a presumption of title under Section 110 of the Evidence Act?
No, long possession alone is not enough; the party contesting the claim must fail to prove their own title for the presumption to apply. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
2025:BHC-AUG:13651 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 320 OF 1995 Motiram Bajirao Patil, age 59 years, Occ. Agriulture, R/o Asankheda, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon.
Died through L.Rs.
Dattatraya Motiram Patil, age 37 years, Occ. Service, R/o Asankheda (Bk), Tq Pachora, District Jalgaon. Appellant.
Orig. plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad.
2. Group Grampanchayat Asankheda, Khurd and Budruk, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. Respondents.
Orig. defendants.
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S B. Deshpande Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. A. Deshpande I/b Mr. S.P. Tiwari AGP for Respondent no.1 : Mr. V S Badakh Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. S. V. Dixit CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved on : April 25, 2025 Pronounced on : May 05, 2025.
JUDGMENT :-
1. The appellant/original plaintiff impugns the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Appeal no.289 of 1989 thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 30.9.1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge S.D., Jalgaon, in R.C.S.No.619 of 1985 thereby dismissing suit of the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction claimed against defendant no.1/State of Maharashtra. (Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their original status).
2. Appellant/plaintiff instituted suit claiming the relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit plot which is part and parcel of gat no.147 of village Asankhede, more particularly, described in the plaint. According to plaintiff, suit plot was possessed by his forefathers since 150 to 200 years. Plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as owner. Plaintiff has installed a flour-mill and constructed cattle-shed as well as water pond. Defendant no.2 village Panchayat mutated name of plaintiff’s father in Panchatyat record under Resolution No.46 dated 22.12.1964. Since then, defendant no.2 is receiving tax. Plaintiff asserts that he has no documentary evidence to show his ownership, but his long standing and continuous possession would rest title upon him by prescription. Hence, in the alternate, he claims ownership by way of adverse possession. According to plaintiff, on false complaint made by a villager, S.D.O. Chalisgaon made an inquiry. Eventually, Tahsildar, Pachora ordered plaintiff to vacate the suit plot. Hence, plaintiff required to approach Court seeking relief, as claimed.
3. Defendant no.1 refuted plaintiff’s claim, either as to his own title or acquisition of same by adverse possession. It is pleaded that suit plot is meant for public use. Plaintiff encroached on area of suit plot causing nuisance to public. The Government requires land for implementation of various schemes. Resolution of the village Panchayat is inconsistent to Section 53 and 56 of the village Panchayat Act.
The Trial Court framed issues based on pleadings of the parties and finally dismissed the suit. In appeal filed by the plaintiff before the District Judge, Jalgaon, the decree as passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.
4. Aggrieved plaintiff filed present Second Appeal, which has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 4.3.1997 on ground nos.3,5,6,7,9,11 and 17, being substantial questions of law, which reads thus :-
i. The courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, in not considering the fact that long possession under section 110 of the Evidence Act is proof of title.
ii. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the appellant has not pleaded the adverse possession properly in the plaint is legally correct.
iii. The Courts below have failed to consider that the appellant himself claims ownership over the suit property for more than 200 years continuously and without interruption to the knowledge.
iv. The Courts below have wrongfully held that the appellant is not entitled to raise alternative p
