Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 37176
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI, J
Smt.Satyawati & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. & Ors. – Respondent
FA 6/2005
Shri Rohit Raghuwanshi, Shri Vineet Singh
Continuous possession for over 12 years can establish ownership by adverse possession, even against the true owner, provided the possession is hostile and without consent.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction - Plaintiffs claimed ownership of a residential house based on a Baksheeshnama and adverse possession, asserting continuous possession since 1937. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 36)
(B) Adverse Possession - Legal principles - Continuous and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years can establish ownership by adverse possession, even against the true owner, provided the possession is hostile and without consent. (Paras 8, 24)
(C) Co-ownership - A co-owner can maintain a suit for eviction against a tenant, and one co-owner's possession is deemed possession of all co-owners unless proven otherwise. (Paras 27, 30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be the legal heirs of the original occupant of a house gifted by the then ruler of Chhatarpur estate, sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against eviction proceedings initiated by the Public Works Department. They asserted continuous possession since 1937 based on a Baksheeshnama. (Paras 2, 36)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established their claim of ownership through the Baksheeshnama and continuous possession, thus reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit. (Paras 36)
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs could claim ownership by adverse possession and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit based on the absence of a will or specific legal heirship. (Paras 5, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs' continuous possession and the Baksheeshnama were sufficient to establish ownership, and the trial court's findings were perverse and not supported by evidence. (Paras 36)
Result: Appeal allowed; plaintiffs declared owners of the suit house with a permanent injunction against interference. (Paras 36)
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.7A/2002 by II Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur dismissing the suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2. The facts adumbrated in nutshell are as under :-
2A. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction claiming therein that the plaintiffs are the members of same family. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of plaintiff No.2 and after getting married they are residing together at Chhatarpur. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 owned and possessed the residential house bearing No.3, Ward No.20, Mahal Road, Near City Kotwali, Tahsil Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur. Though, plaintiff No.2, being the husband of plaintiff No.1 was residing together in the same house but he had no share and right over the said house. The description of the house was given in the plaint map attached with the plaint and the same was was treated to be the part of plaint. The house in question was said to be the part of the property of the then ruler of Chhatarpur estate Shri Vishwanath Singh Judeo. Plaintiff No.1 and her predecessors are in possession of the said house since last 70 years and still they are using the said house possessed by them and as such plaintiff No.1 is claiming herself to be the only owner of the said property. The said house was an old construction constructed somewhere 150-200 years ago, therefore, plaintiff No.1 and her predecessors got it repaired from time to time as per their own capacity and after getting married with plaintiff No.2, both of them were using the house and got it repaired as per their financial capacity. The said house is situated over 3,500 sq.ft. of land and the boundaries of the house are shown in the plaint itself. The plaint map was also prepared and the said house was said to be a disputed house in the plaint.
2B. As per the averments made in the plaint, the then ruler of Chhatarpur estate Late Shri Vishwanath Singh Judeo lived till 1937 and in his life time, he was the only ruler of that area and was having all rights to transfer the said property on his own will. During his life time, for getting proper treatment of his illness, he called grandfather of plaintiff No.1 Late Shri Ram Sumer Vaidya @ Daroga Pandit from Kashi and asked him to use the said house. Father of plaintiff No.1 Late Shri Uma Shankar Tiwari was also staying with him. Since, grandfather of plaintiff No.1 Late Shri Ram Sumer Vaidya @ Daroga Pandit was a renowned rajvaidya (Doctor) of that time and he was treating the then ruler, therefore, the said disputed house was given to him for his own use and till the life time of the then ruler Late Shri Vishwanath Singh Judeo, grandfather and father of plaintiff No.1 remained in the said house at Chhatarpur. Vishwanath Singh Judeo died on 04.04.1937 and thereafter, his son namely Shri Bhawani Singh Judeo became his successor and ruler of the said area and also acquired all rights over the property of Late Shri Vishwanath Singh Judeo.
2C. In 1947, a sale agreement was executed and as such Chhatarpur estate got merged with Union of India and as per the said agreement, except security, foreign affairs and telecommunication, rest other fields came under the control of the then ruler of Chhatarpur estate Late Shri Bhawani Singh Judeo and as such he became the absolute owner of all the properties of Chhatarpur estate and even acquired all the rights to transfer any part of the property of Chhatarpur estate to anybody.
2D. On 13.03.1948, by merging 35 estates of Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand, a new state was constituted in the name of Vindhya Pradesh which also included Chhatarpur estate.
2E. A special agreement was executed in respect of newly constituted state namely Vindhya Pradesh and by virtue of clause-11 of the said agreement, all the estates and their rulers w
