Supreme Court Reverses Adverse Possession Claim: Brijesh Kumar vs. Shardabai (2019)

Date of the Judgment: October 1, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1112
Judges: Navin Sinha, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a claim of adverse possession be sustained based on suspicious land records and an unestablished origin of possession? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this critical question, ultimately reversing a High Court decision that had favored the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession. The Court emphasized the importance of clear and convincing evidence to support such claims, particularly when the possession is contested.
This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The dispute concerns a piece of land in Village-Purani Chhabani, Guna. The original owners, Mool Chand and Kashi Ram, sold the land to Urmila Devi on October 11, 1972. Urmila Devi then sold portions of this land to the appellants on August 22, 1989, who took possession and built structures. The plaintiff, Matadin, filed a suit on August 28, 1990, claiming adverse possession based on Khasra entries from 1960-1961. Matadin also sought to nullify the sale deeds. After Matadin’s death on May 26, 1994, his legal heirs amended the suit on April 21, 1995, stating that Matadin had taken possession of the land in 1960-1961 after the original owners failed to return his bullocks and agricultural implements.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit, finding that Matadin had perfected his title through adverse possession. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that the Trial Court had overlooked documentary evidence. The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case refers to Section 115 and Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code states that if the Tehsildar finds a wrong or incorrect entry in the land records, they shall direct necessary changes to be made in red ink after due inquiry. Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code states that there is a presumption with regard to the correctness of the Khasra entries regarding possession.

• Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code: Deals with the correction of wrong or incorrect entries in land records.
• Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code: Establishes a presumption of correctness for Khasra entries regarding possession.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The First Appellate Court’s findings of fact are final, and the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence without finding any perversity.
• The plaintiff never acquired title by adverse possession because the original owner sold the land to Urmila Devi before the 12-year period for adverse possession was complete.
• The Khasra entries showing the plaintiff’s possession were interpolations in red ink, while the entries in Urmila Devi’s name were in blue ink.
• The plaintiff’s son and nephew, who were clerks in the collectorate, were suspended for making false entries.
• The Court Commissioner’s report also supported the appellants’ possession.
• Relied on M. Venkatesh & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 1, arguing that adverse possession requires peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The plea of adverse possession was in the original plaint, and no new facts were introduced by amendment.
• Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code creates a presumption of correctness for the Khasra entries regarding the plaintiff’s possession.
• The original land owner never filed an application for correction under Section 116 of the Code.
• The findings of manipulation in the Khasra entries do not survive after the exoneration of the plaintiff’s son and nephew in departmental proceedings and acquittal in the criminal case.
• The plaintiff was in continuous, uninterrupted possession for over 12 years, hostile to the original land owner.
• The plaintiff was never dispossessed after the 1972 sale.
• Relied on Dagabai Fakirmahomed vs. Sakharam Gavaji & Ors., AIR 1948 BOM 149, Wontakal Yalpi Chenabasavana Gowd vs. Rao Bahadur Y. Mahabaleshwarappa & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 337, M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 470, to argue that the onus was on the defendants to prove the plaintiff’s possession was interrupted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in reversing the findings of the First Appellate Court and restoring the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code: Regarding correction of wrong entries in land records.
• Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code: Regarding presumption of correctness of Khasra entries.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• M. Venkatesh & Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC 1*: The court relied on this case to emphasize the requirements of adverse possession, particularly the need for peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession.
• Dagabai Fakirmahomed vs. Sakharam Gavaji & Ors., AIR 1948 BOM 149*, Wontakal Yalpi Chenabasavana Gowd vs. Rao Bahadur Y. Mahabaleshwarappa & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 337*, and M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 470*: While these cases were cited by the respondents to argue that the burden was on the defendants to prove interruption of possession, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the basic requirements of adverse possession.
• Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316*: The court referred to this case to highlight that animus possidendi is a key element of adverse possession and that the person claiming adverse possession must establish the date of possession, nature of possession, and knowledge of the true owner.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the suspicious nature of the Khasra entries and the lack of a clear origin of the plaintiff’s possession. The Court noted that the red ink entries, which were crucial to the plaintiff’s claim, were doubtful and potentially fraudulent. The Court also emphasized that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements of adverse possession, including continuous, hostile, and open possession.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the suspicious nature of the Khasra entries, the fact that the plaintiff’s possession was interrupted by the sale to Urmila Devi, and the lack of clear evidence regarding the origin of the plaintiff’s possession. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that Urmila Devi never acquired possession, highlighting that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous, hostile, and open possession for the required period. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession and that the plaintiff had failed to discharge this burden.

“The plaintiff claimed adverse possession from 1960-1961. The lands were sold to Urmila Devi before the expiry of 12 years on 11.10.1972 and she was put in possession. The plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted possession for twelve years was therefore unsustainable as completely devoid of substance.”

“Adverse possession is hostile possession by assertion of a hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner as held in M.Venkatesh (supra). The respondent had failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous possession demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner.”

“The onus lay on the respondent to establish when and how he came into possession, the nature of his possession, the factum of possession known and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over 12 years which was open and undisturbed.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Claims of adverse possession require strong, clear, and convincing evidence.
• ✓ Suspicious land records can undermine a claim of adverse possession.
• ✓ The burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession to establish all necessary elements.
• ✓ Interruption of possession by a sale can negate a claim of adverse possession.
• ✓ Courts will scrutinize claims of adverse possession, especially when they involve overriding the rights of the true owner.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the First Appellate Court, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained if the claimant fails to establish continuous, hostile, and open possession for the required period, especially when there is evidence of suspicious land records or interruption of possession. This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies on the claimant in adverse possession cases and that courts will scrutinize such claims to protect the rights of true owners.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession due to suspicious Khasra entries and a lack of continuous possession. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the claimant and that the claim must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, especially when the possession is contested.