J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. These appeals arise out of three separate suits. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status in Original Suit No. 12091 of 2010 (Civil Suit no. 331 of 1996). The appellant is the plaintiff in the said suit. The respondents in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19060 of 2014 are the defendants in the said suit.

3. It is not in dispute that one Sungani Bai (Sukri Bai) was Signature Not Verified the original owner of the suit property who died in the year Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.03.18

17:25:22 IST 1947. Sungani Bai (the original owner) executed a registered Reason:

settlement deed dated 1st December 1945. She settled the suit property by the said settlement deed in favour of three persons: Gopu Bai, Abbey Karan Joshi and Vijay Kishan Bohra. It is not in dispute that the original owner died intestate without leaving any legal representatives. As per the settlement deed, it was provided that 1/3rd share in the suit property was given to Gobu Bai for her life and then to her two daughters for their lifetime. It was provided that after their demise, 1/3rd of the share would pass on to their male children. The daughters of Gobu Bai died, leaving behind them Radhe Shyam, Rajendra Purohit and Omprakash Purohit. As per the settlement deed, 1/3rd share was given to Abbey Karan Joshi during his lifetime and after his demise to his male children. The 2nd defendant – Sailesh Joshi, is his only son. The remaining 1/3rd share was settled on Vijay Kishan Bohra during his lifetime. It was provided that it would go to his male children after his lifetime. The said Vijay Kishan Bohra died, leaving behind his son Chandrasekar Bohra. Vasantha Kumar (original 3rd defendant) and his wife V. Sandhya (4th defendant) purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 29th January 2001 from the 2nd defendant – Sailesh Joshi, and the successors of two other sharers who were entitled to 1/3rd share each under the said deed of settlement. The 3rd defendant died during the pendency of the proceedings, and the 5th defendant is the son of the 3rd and 4th defendants.

4. Original Suit No. 12091 of 2010, as stated earlier, was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit was filed on 17th November 1995, in which the plaintiff claimed that he was in open, uninterrupted and continuous possession of the suit property for 45 years. He claimed that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession along with his father and other family members. In the plaint, it is stated that the original owner died in 1947. The plaintiff relied upon several documents to show his possession. As the defendants threatened to dispossess him and trespass upon the suit property, the suit was filed for a declaration that he had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession and for permanent injunction.

5. The 2nd defendant contested the suit by contending that the plaintiff was well aware of the said deed of settlement, but he had not disclosed the same in the plaint. He submitted that the three persons on whom the suit property was settled by the original owner in the year 1945 became the owners of the suit property on the demise of the original owner. The 4th and the 5th defendants also filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff was in unlawful possession of a small portion of the suit property to the extent of 250 sq. ft. The 4th and 5th defendants denied the claim of adverse possession made by the plaintiff.

6. Original Suit no. 12092 of 2010 was filed by the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants against the plaintiff. The suit was filed for possession based on the title acquired by the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants on the basis of the sale deed dated 29th January

2001.

7. The 2nd defendant had filed a suit for eviction against the tenants in the suit property, being EP No. 28 of 1996, in which an order of eviction was passed. The p