Chet Ram vs Mehar Chand - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2784

Headnote:(A) Law of Adverse Possession - Requirements for claiming title - A person claiming adverse possession must clearly plead and establish: (a) the date of entry into possession; (b) the nature of possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the true owner; (d) the duration of possession; and (e) that possession was open and undisturbed (Paras 23 and 27).

(B) Animus Possidendi - Intent to dispossess - Possession must be hostile, open, and continuous ("nec vi, nec clam, nec precario"). Mere long-term possession does not necessarily constitute adverse possession; it requires a positive intent to dispossess the true owner, which must be communicated through hostile and open acts (Paras 24, 25 and 26).

(C) Burden of Proof - The burden lies heavily on the person pleading adverse possession to provide clear and unequivocal evidence, as such a claim seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner (Paras 23 and 27).

(D) Scope of Interference in Concurrent Findings - High Courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts unless such findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence (Para 28).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a small portion of land, asserting absolute ownership based on title. A revenue demarcation report confirmed that the defendants, who owned adjoining property, had encroached upon a specific area of the plaintiffs' land. The defendants contested the suit by claiming they had been in peaceful, continuous, and adverse possession of the land for over 70 years and had constructed a building thereon, asserting that they had acquired title through adverse possession.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to plead and prove the essential legal requirements of adverse possession. Specifically, the written statement did not mention the date of entry or the specific nature of possession. Furthermore, the testimony of the defendants was contradictory; while claiming adverse possession, they denied the plaintiffs' ownership, whereas the plea of adverse possession fundamentally acknowledges the other's title while asserting it has been eclipsed by hostile possession.

Issues: Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were the result of misinterpretation and misconstruction of oral and documentary evidence, particularly regarding the defendants' claim of title by adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a plea of adverse possession to succeed, the possessor must demonstrate an open and hostile intent to dispossess the true owner. Since the defendants failed to provide evidence of the specific parameters required (date, nature, and openness of possession) and gave contradictory testimony regarding the plaintiffs' title, they failed to discharge the burden of proof. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claim for possession based on title was upheld.

Result: appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction based on title — Demarcation showed encroachment by defendants. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Plaintiffs asserted title and encroachment. Defendants claimed title by adverse possession over 70 years. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 )

3. Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of fact that defendants failed to prove adverse possession. (Para 32 )

4. What must a person prove to establish title by adverse possession?

A person must show on what date they came into possession, nature of possession, knowledge to the other party, duration, and that possession was open and undisturbed. (Para 23 )

5. Is mere long possession sufficient to constitute adverse possession?

No. Mere possession, however long, does not necessarily mean it is adverse to the true owner. Hostile possession in denial of title is required. (Para 27 , 28 )

6. What is the animus required for adverse possession?

The animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion of the actual owner is a requisite ingredient. The intention to dispossess must be open and hostile. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )

7. Who bears the burden of proof for a claim of adverse possession?

The burden is on the person pleading adverse possession to clearly plead and establish all necessary facts. They have no equities in their favor. (Para 23 , 28 )

8. Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact on adverse possession?

A High Court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or without any evidence. (Para 29 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

( 2026:HHC:17941 )

RSA No. 5 of 2025.

Decided on :12 th May, 2026.

Chet Ram & Ors. ...Appellants.

Versus f Mehar Chand & Anr. ...Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

For the Appellants:

Mr. H. S. Rana , Advocate with Ms.

C Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate.

For the Respondents:

Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate h with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 27.08.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., dated 08.01.2019, was afÏrmed whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction was decreed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction on the groundf that they are absolute owners of the suit land bearing khasra No.360. It was averred that defendants had forcibly and illegally encroached upon the suit land to the extenut of 0-4 biswas, who are owners of adjoining property. The plaintiffs had applied for demarcation of their land and Tehsildar Baddi conducted demarcation on 30.06.2024 in presence of the defendants and other local persons including adjoining land owners. The demarcating ofÏcer found the defendants to be in unlwaful and unauthorised possession of 0-4 biswas of land out of khasra No. 360 and prepared tatima of encroached area, which was shown by the demarcating ofÏcer as tatima khasra No. 360/1 in the report. After obtaining the demarcation, the plaintiffs had requested the defendants to vacate the suit land as they are absolute owners of the suit property, however, the defendants had failed to do so. The defendants threatened the plaintiffs to encroach upon the remaining portion of the land forcibly and illegally and also to change the character of the suit land.

3. As per the plaintiffs, the demarcation which was carried out by the revenue ofÏcer hfas become final as the defendants have failed to file any appeal against the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for vacant possession of the suit land and for upermanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, changing the nature, character and raising construction over the suit land.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the defendants are in possession 0-4 biswas area out of land measuring 5 bighas, 16 biswas comprised in Khasra No.360/1. The possession of the defendants is peaceful, continuous and adverse to the knowledge of plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-title, Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who were previous owners of the suit property. Shri Bhodu, predecessor-in-title of the defendants entered into possession of the suit property about 70 years ago and built a house over the same and he remained in possession of the suit property within the knowledge of Shri Kirpu and Smt. Harnami, who never raised objection.

5. It is further averred that thef predecessor-in-title of the defendants have set up their own title over the suit property, denying the title of predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The defendants have rauised double storied building on the suit property to which no objection was raised either by the plaintiff or their predecessor-in-title as they admitted the defendants to be owners-in-possession of the suit property. It has been further averred that the possession of the defendants is adverse, open and hostile to the knowledge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
Chet Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mehar Chand – Respondent
RSA/5/2025

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What must a person prove to establish title by adverse possession?

5. Is mere long possession sufficient to constitute adverse possession?

6. What is the animus required for adverse possession?

7. Who bears the burden of proof for a claim of adverse possession?

8. Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact on adverse possession?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMAChet Ram – AppellantVersusMehar Chand – RespondentRSA/5/2025

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What must a person prove to establish title by adverse possession?

5. Is mere long possession sufficient to constitute adverse possession?

6. What is the animus required for adverse possession?

7. Who bears the burden of proof for a claim of adverse possession?

8. Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact on adverse possession?

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
Chet Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mehar Chand – Respondent
RSA/5/2025