Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MOHAN SINGH & ANR – Appellant
Versus
HARMINDER SINGH SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ANR – Respondent
RSA 4964 2017
ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION - OWNERSHIP - [The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of immovable property beyond the time prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The defendants claimed that they had been in adverse possession of the property for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and that their possession had ripened into ownership. The court held that the defendants had failed to prove the date, time, month, or year in which their possession became adverse to the plaintiff and that they had also failed to place on record any document to prove that the suit property was owned by them. The court also held that the judgment relied upon by the defendants was not relevant to the present case. The court dismissed the appeal.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of immovable property, claiming that he had purchased the property from the original owner in 1972. The defendants claimed that they had been in adverse possession of the property for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and that their possession had ripened into ownership. The trial court and the first appellate court both found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendants had failed to prove the date, time, month, or year in which their possession became adverse to the plaintiff and that they had also failed to place on record any document to prove that the suit property was owned by them. The court also held that the judgment relied upon by the defendants was not relevant to the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants had been in adverse possession of the property for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit. 2. Whether the defendants had proved their claim of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision:1. The period of limitation for a suit for possession of immovable property begins to run from the time when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.2. In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, the defendant must prove that their possession was open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for a period of at least 12 years.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the first appellate court.
RSA No.4964 of 2017(O&M)
-1-
2023:PHHC:158354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4964 of 2017(O&M)
Date of Order:11.12.2023
Mohan Singh and another
.Appellants
Versus
Harminder Singh (since deceased) through LRs and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:
Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Kashish Aggarwal, Advocate and
Ms. Sonia Monga, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1.
In this regular second appeal, the correctness of the concurrent
findings of the fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the
plaintiff's suit for possession is assailed by the defendant no.1 and 2.
2.
In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief are required to be noticed.
3.
The plaintiff (late Sh. Harminder Singh son of Sh. Sucha Singh)
claims that he along with Sh. Harinder Singh purchased the property from
Sh. Mihya Dass vide registered sale deed dated 26.05.1972, which was
registered on 06.06.1972. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.2
is in the possession of the property but he has stopped paying the rent for the
rented premises. Previously the plaintiff filed the application under Section
13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
NARESH KUMAR
2023.12.15 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
RSA No.4964 of 2017(O&M)
-2-
2023:PHHC:158354
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1973' Act'), however, Sh. Joga Singh,
defendant no.2, being the tenant has denied the landlord-tenant relationship.
4.
The rent petition was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff
has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the
parties. The appeal against the aforesaid judgment also got dismissed.
Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession.
5.
Defendant nos.1 and 2, filed a written statement claiming that
they rented the shop from defendant no.3 (Trust) in the year 1965 and the
shop is owned by the Trust by adverse possession.
6.
Both the courts have found that the defendants have failed to
place on record any document to prove that the Trust has become the owner
of the property by adverse possession. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff
has been decreed.
7.
This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along
with the requisitioned record.
8.
The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of immovable property
beyond the time prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. He
submits that the Trust has been in the adverse possession of the property for
the last more than 12 years before the filing of the suit and possession being
nine points in law, their possession has ripened into ownership. He further
submits that the judgment Ex.D27 has not been considered by the courts
below. He further contends that the property which was purchased by the
plaintiff is different from the suit property as the plot numbers of both the
properties are distinct, property purchased by the plaintiff is property
NARESH KUMAR
2023.12.15 17:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
Chandigarh
RSA No.4964 of 2017(O&M)
-3-
2023:PHHC:158354
no.7149, whereas the suit property number is 7149/4. He also relies upon
the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Kesar Bai vs. Genda Lal and
another, (2022) 10 SCC 217 , to contend that once the plaintiff has failed to
prove the ownership of the suit property on basis of the registered sale deed,
his suit for possession is not maintainable.
9.
On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the
respondent (plaintiff) contends that the appellant or the Trust
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
