2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
PRITU ALIAS PRITAM SINGH deceased through LRs Ranjit Singh and others – Appellant
Versus
BALWANT SINGH – Respondent
RSA/347/2005

Pleas of title by sale and adverse possession are contradictory. Possession of a co-sharer is presumed on behalf of all unless ouster is proven. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the right to sue accrues upon actual or threatened infringement of a right, not mere revenue entries.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 58 - Suit for declaration - Right to sue accrues when the right asserted is denied or challenged through an overt act or unequivocal threat, and not merely upon the attestation of revenue mutations which do not injure the party. (Paras 50-58)

(B) Adverse Possession - Mutual exclusivity of pleas - Pleas of title by purchase and adverse possession are contradictory and cannot be taken simultaneously - Possession of one co-sharer is deemed possession for all unless clear ouster is proven - Requirements for establishing adverse possession include specific pleading of the date, nature, and hostile character of possession (animus possidendi) to the knowledge of the true owner. (Paras 29-39, 45-49)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Adverse inference - A presumption arises that the case set up by a party is not correct where that party abstains from entering the witness box to state their case on oath and offer themselves for cross-examination. (Paras 59-62)

(D) Transfer of Property Act - Principle of title - No person can transfer a title or right greater than their own; a co-sharer cannot alienate the share of another co-sharer, particularly a minor, without authorization. (Para 62)

Facts of the case:
A suit was filed for declaration of a 1/3rd share in land and permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants claimed ownership through an oral sale conducted in the early 1940s and alternatively through adverse possession, asserting open and hostile possession for over 50 years. After the trial court partly decreed the suit, the first appellate court reversed the decision, ruling that the defendants had acquired title via adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants' pleas of purchase and adverse possession were destructive of each other. It held that there was no evidence regarding the precise date when possession became adverse or a proven intent to exclude the true owner. The suit was held to be within the limitation period as the cause of action accrued when the plaintiff became aware of illegal revenue entries and faced threats of dispossession.

Issues: Whether the first appellate court was correct in granting title via adverse possession despite contradictory pleadings; whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58; and whether an adverse inference should be drawn against defendants for their failure to testify as witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: Pleas of title by sale and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent. Possession of a co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all co-sharers unless an ouster is clearly established. For adverse possession to ripen into title, the claimant must prove the specific date of commencement and the hostile nature of possession. Limitation under Article 58 begins from the accrual of the right to sue, which requires an overt act of infringement or a clear threat to a right.

Result: RSA No. 348/2005 allowed; RSA No. 347/2005 dismissed. Judgment of the first appellate court quashed and Trial Court's judgment restored.