Supreme Court Settles Property Ownership Dispute: Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust vs. Diwan Chand (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of property ownership and the validity of claims based on adverse possession.

CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute.

Case Name: Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust & Anr. vs. Sh. Diwan Chand (Dead) through LRs & Ors.

Judgment Date: 11 April 2023

Can a party claim ownership of a property based on adverse possession if they have previously acknowledged the actual owner’s title? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a complex property dispute involving the Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust and various respondents. The court clarified the importance of consistent claims and admissions in determining property ownership, particularly when adverse possession is asserted. This case highlights how prior admissions can undermine claims of adverse possession.

The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute concerning Khasra No. 4833, owned by the Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust. The Trust initiated legal action against the respondents, claiming they had encroached upon the land. The respondents contested the claim, arguing they had been 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 legal battle has a long history, with multiple suits and appeals.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the Trust, 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. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the concept of adverse possession. The Supreme Court noted that a plea of adverse possession can only be raised if the ownership of the property is not in dispute. The court examined the evidence, including admissions made by the respondents, to determine whether they had established a valid claim of adverse possession.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Trust) Arguments:

• The Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit.
• The Lower Appellate Court misread the evidence and reversed the findings.
• The respondents’ counsel admitted before the Trial Court that the disputed site is part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The High Court also found that Khasra No. 4833 belongs to the appellants.
• The respondents’ application before the Tehsildar admitted that the disputed area was part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The Local Commissioner’s report relied upon by the Lower Appellate Court was flawed as it did not ascertain any pucca points.
• The respondents’ submission of building plans to the Municipal Committee also mentioned that the property is part of Khasra No. 4833.
• The respondents had previously lost on the ground of adverse possession in Suit No. 371 of 1981.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• It is too late for the appellants to raise factual issues before the Supreme Court.
• There are concurrent findings of fact in favor of the respondents.
• The Local Commissioner’s report 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.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues were:

1. Whether the respondents were in possession of Khasra No. 4833.
2. Whether the respondents had established their claim of adverse possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Harsarup vs. Municipal Committee (Suit No. 292 of 1962) by Sub Judge, Karnal: The court referred to the decree passed in this case in favour of the predecessors of the appellants, establishing their ownership of the property.
• Local Commissioner’s report dated 19.1.1975: The court noted that this report, submitted in execution proceedings, stated that the shops constructed by the respondents were on Khasra No. 4833.
• Civil Suit No. 371 of 1981: The court highlighted that the respondents’ predecessors had lost on the issue of adverse possession in this suit.
• Local Commissioner’s report dated 2.12.1978: The court found this report to be vague and unreliable as it did not ascertain any pucca points and did not mention Khasra No. 4833.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court and Lower Appellate Court’s decisions, restoring the Trial Court’s decree. The Court found that the respondents had admitted to being in possession of part of Khasra No. 4833, both through their counsel’s statement and their application to the Tehsildar. The Court also emphasized that the respondents’ claim of adverse possession was not valid, as they had previously acknowledged the appellants’ ownership and had lost on the same ground in prior litigation.

The court emphasized that the respondents’ admission regarding the property being part of Khasra No. 4833 was crucial. 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. 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 highlighted the significance of the respondents’ earlier loss on the issue of adverse possession, stating, “As far as the plea raised by the defendants therein regarding they becoming the owner of the property by way of adverse possession, the finding was that in the earlier litigation, the defendants had already lost on that ground alone (Ref. Suit No. 371/1981).”

The court further 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the admissions made by the respondents regarding the ownership and identity of the property. The Court emphasized the significance of these admissions in undermining the respondents’ claim of adverse possession. The Court also considered the previous litigation where the respondents’ predecessors had lost on the issue of adverse possession. The Court found the Local Commissioner’s report relied upon by the Lower Appellate Court to be vague and unreliable.

Key Takeaways

• Admissions made by a party in legal proceedings or documents can significantly undermine their claims, especially in property disputes.
• A claim of adverse possession requires consistent denial of the actual owner’s title.
• Prior legal defeats on the same issue can be detrimental to future claims.
• Local Commissioner reports must be based on proper demarcation and pucca points for them to be reliable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judgments and decrees passed in Suit Nos. 273 and 274 of 1989 by the trial court are restored.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that admissions made by a party regarding ownership of a property can negate their claim of adverse possession. This case reinforces the principle that a claim of adverse possession must be based on a denial of the true owner’s title, and any prior admission of such title will be detrimental to the claim.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust vs. Diwan Chand clarifies the importance of consistent claims and admissions in property disputes. The Court emphasized that a party cannot claim adverse possession if they have previously acknowledged the owner’s title. This judgment underscores the significance of accurate documentation, reliable evidence, and consistent legal positions in property litigation.