Supreme Court Rejects Claim of Ownership Based on Conflicting Pleas of Sale Deed and Adverse Possession: Kesar Bai vs. Genda Lal (2022) INSC 1005 (14 October 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1005
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Krishna Murari, J.
Can a person claim ownership of a property based on both a sale deed and adverse possession simultaneously? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that these two claims are contradictory and cannot be made together. This judgment arose from a dispute over property ownership where the plaintiffs initially claimed ownership through a sale deed and, failing that, through adverse possession. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the legal position on such conflicting claims and their implications. The bench comprised of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute where the original plaintiffs, Genda Lal and another, filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction against the defendant, Kesar Bai. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 31 August 1967, executed in favor of their father and husband, Dariyab Singh. They also claimed ownership through adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, granting a permanent injunction and declaring the plaintiffs’ title by adverse possession. The High Court, while agreeing that the claims of ownership via sale deed and adverse possession were contradictory, upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision. This led to the defendant, Kesar Bai, appealing to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by granting a permanent injunction and declaring their title by adverse possession. The High Court, in second appeal, framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. Although the High Court answered this question in favor of the appellant (defendant), it did not interfere with the First Appellate Court’s judgment, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the concept of adverse possession and its incompatibility with a claim of ownership based on a sale deed. The court examined the legal implications of claiming ownership through both a sale deed and adverse possession simultaneously, highlighting their contradictory nature.

Arguments

The appellant, Kesar Bai, argued that the plaintiffs’ claim for ownership based on a sale deed had been negated by all lower courts. The appellant further argued that once the claim based on the sale deed was rejected, the plaintiffs could not claim title by adverse possession, as these two claims are contradictory. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, who, at best, could be considered encroachers.

The respondent, Genda Lal, argued that they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession since they were in possession of the suit land after the execution of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the First Appellate Court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, despite acknowledging that the pleas of ownership based on a sale deed and adverse possession are contradictory.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the inherent contradiction between claiming ownership through a sale deed and through adverse possession.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities, but the court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The plea of ownership based on a sale deed is contradictory to the plea of adverse possession.
• Once the claim based on the sale deed is negated, the plaintiffs cannot claim title by adverse possession.
• The plaintiffs’ possession is that of an encroacher, not an owner.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inherent contradiction between claiming ownership through a sale deed and through adverse possession. The Court emphasized that these two claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be pursued simultaneously. The Court also focused on the fact that once the claim based on the sale deed was rejected by all lower courts, the plaintiffs’ possession could not be protected by a decree of permanent injunction, as they were essentially encroachers.

The Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has specifically observed and held that the plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both, are contrary to each other and the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to take both the pleas at the same time.” The Court further noted, “In that view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant – original defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.” The Court concluded, “Under the circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A person cannot claim ownership of a property based on both a sale deed and adverse possession simultaneously.
• ✓ The plea of ownership based on a sale deed and the plea of adverse possession are contradictory and mutually exclusive.
• ✓ If a claim of ownership based on a sale deed is rejected, the claimant cannot then claim title by adverse possession.
• ✓ A person in possession of a property without a valid title is considered an encroacher and cannot be protected by a permanent injunction.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, restoring the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the suit.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person cannot claim ownership of a property based on both a sale deed and adverse possession simultaneously, as these claims are contradictory. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that adverse possession is a claim against the true owner and is not compatible with a claim of ownership based on a valid title. This clarifies the position that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by claiming ownership first by a sale deed and then, failing that, by adverse possession.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kesar Bai vs. Genda Lal clarifies that a claim of ownership based on a sale deed and a claim of adverse possession are mutually exclusive. The Court held that once a claim of ownership based on a sale deed is rejected, the claimant cannot then claim title by adverse possession. This judgment reinforces the principle that a person in possession without a valid title is an encroacher and cannot be protected by a permanent injunction.