Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Decree in Property Dispute: Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust vs. Diwan Chand (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 11 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 348
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a court deny relief to a property owner when the opposing party admits the property belongs to the owner? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving a charitable trust and individuals claiming adverse possession. The court overturned the High Court’s decision, which had sided with the individuals despite their admission that the property belonged to the trust. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust, a registered charitable trust, owned land forming part of Khasra No. 4833. On May 26, 1982, the Trust filed a suit for possession, alleging that the respondents had encroached upon their land. The respondents contested the suit, claiming they were in possession for over 34 years, running their business, and that the land was not part of Khasra No. 4833. They also claimed ownership through adverse possession.

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the Trust on February 28, 1991, ordering the respondents’ eviction. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the Trust had failed to prove their title. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court’s judgment on October 13, 2009, and dismissed the review application on April 5, 2010.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Trust, ordering the respondents to vacate the property. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, arguing that the Trust had not sufficiently proven their ownership of the property. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the concept of adverse possession and the establishment of property ownership. The respondents claimed adverse possession, which, as the court noted, presupposes that the ownership of the property is with the appellants. The court also considered the evidence presented, including reports from local commissioners and admissions made by the respondents in various proceedings.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit in favor of the Trust.
• The lower appellate court misread the evidence and reversed the trial court’s findings.
• The High Court erred in upholding the judgment of the lower appellate court.
• The respondents’ counsel admitted before the trial court that the disputed site is part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The plea of adverse possession could only be raised if the ownership of the property was not in dispute.
• The High Court acknowledged that Khasra No. 4833 belongs to the appellants, yet denied relief based on disputed property identity.
• The respondents, in an application before the Tehsildar, admitted that the area in their possession was part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The respondents submitted building plans to the Municipal Committee, identifying the property as part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The report of the Local Commissioner (Ex. D-16) was without ascertaining any pucca points.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The appellants are raising factual issues too late in the proceedings.
• There are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in favor of the respondents.
• The report of the Local Commissioner dated 2.12.1978 indicates that the premises in possession of the respondents is not part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The respondents have been in possession of the property for more than 34 years.
• No substantial question of law was framed in the appeal before the High Court.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants highlighted the inconsistencies in the respondents’ claims, especially their admission that the disputed property was part of Khasra No. 4833, which was owned by the trust. This was a crucial point that the Supreme Court considered.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but addressed the core dispute which was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in denying relief to the appellants despite the respondents’ admission that the disputed property was part of Khasra No. 4833, which belonged to the appellants.
• Whether the identity of the property was in dispute, given the contradictory reports and admissions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

• No specific legal provisions were explicitly mentioned in the judgment. However, the case revolves around the principles of property ownership, adverse possession, and the admissibility of evidence.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Harsarup vs. Municipal Committee (Suit No. 292 of 1962): The decree in this case was in favor of the appellants’ predecessors, establishing their ownership.
• Report of Local Commissioner dated 19.1.1975: This report was considered reliable because it was made after marking pucca points and specifically mentioned Khasra No. 4833.
• Report of Local Commissioner dated 2.12.1978: This report was deemed unreliable due to its vagueness and lack of specific details.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the respondents’ own admissions that the property in dispute was part of Khasra No. 4833, which belonged to the appellants. The court also found the report of the Local Commissioner dated 19.1.1975 to be more credible than the report dated 2.12.1978. The court emphasized that the respondents’ plea of adverse possession presupposed that the appellants were the owners of the property.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The respondents’ admission that the disputed property was part of Khasra No. 4833, which belonged to the appellants, was a critical factor.
• The court found the Local Commissioner’s report dated 19.1.1975 to be more credible due to its specific details and the marking of pucca points.
• The court noted that the plea of adverse possession itself presupposes that the appellants were the owners of the property.

The court stated, “The only issue on which the appellants have been non-suited is that the respondents are not in possession of any part of Khasra No. 4833 as the property in their possession is different.” The court further added, “However, on that issue as well, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are perverse if considered in the light of two material documents which are in the form of admission of respondents themselves regarding the identity of the property in their possession.” The court also noted, “Still further the plea of the respondents about adverse possession pre-supposes ownership of the specific property of the appellants, which is claimed to be in possession of the respondents.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Admissions made by parties in legal proceedings are crucial and can significantly impact the outcome of a case.
• Reports of Local Commissioners must be based on proper demarcation and evidence to be considered reliable.
• A plea of adverse possession presupposes that the ownership of the property lies with the other party.
• Courts will not deny relief to a property owner when the opposing party admits the property belongs to the owner.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and the High Court and restored the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in Suit Nos. 273 and 274 of 1989.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that admissions made by parties in legal proceedings are crucial and can significantly impact the outcome of a case. Also, a plea of adverse possession presupposes that the ownership of the property lies with the other party. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering all evidence, including admissions, and not relying solely on vague or unsubstantiated reports. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The court restored the trial court’s decree in favor of the Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust, emphasizing the importance of admissions made by parties and the need for reliable evidence in property disputes. The court held that the respondents’ admission that the disputed property was part of Khasra No. 4833 was crucial in determining the outcome of the case.

Category

Parent Category: Property Law

Child Categories: Adverse Possession, Land Disputes, Evidence Law

Parent Category: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Child Categories: Order XXVI, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

FAQ

Q: What is adverse possession?
A: Adverse possession is a legal principle where a person who occupies someone else’s property for a long period can claim ownership if certain conditions are met. However, it presupposes that the ownership of the property lies with the original owner.

Q: What is the significance of a Local Commissioner’s report in a property dispute?
A: A Local Commissioner’s report is an important piece of evidence in property disputes. It is crucial that the report is based on proper demarcation, marking of pucca points, and clear identification of the property.

Q: What happens if a party admits that the disputed property belongs to the other party?
A: If a party admits that the disputed property belongs to the other party, it can significantly impact the outcome of the case. Courts will consider such admissions as strong evidence against the party making the admission.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree in favor of the Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust, holding that the respondents’ admission that the disputed property was part of Khasra No. 4833 was crucial in determining the outcome of the case.