LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the defendant had successfully established a claim of adverse possession over a portion of the suit property.
CASE TYPE: Civil Property Law
Case Name: Narendra & Ors. vs. Ajabrao s/o Narayan Katare (D) Through LRs.
Judgment Date: 26 October 2017
Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2017
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Can a person claim ownership of a property simply by living in it for a long time, even if they don’t have a legal title? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over a house in Nagpur. The core issue was whether the defendant had successfully established a claim of adverse possession, which would allow him to gain ownership of the property despite not being the original owner. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the requirements for establishing adverse possession and emphasized the need for clear and convincing evidence to support such claims. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around a house located in Nagpur, originally owned jointly by Shri Narayan Janglujee Katare, Dokawdu Narayan Katare, Ajabrao Narayan Katare, and Kamlakar Narayan Katare. These individuals, the grandfather, father, and two uncles of the plaintiffs, sold the house to Laxminarayan Brijlal Jaiswal on 21 October 1970, for Rs. 30,000. Subsequently, on 11 October 1985, the plaintiffs purchased the same house from Jaiswal for Rs. 55,000.
Prior to the plaintiffs’ purchase, the original defendant, Ajabrao, was residing in two rooms of the house. After the purchase, the plaintiffs asked Ajabrao to vacate the portion he occupied. Ajabrao refused, denying the plaintiffs’ ownership and claiming that he had been in possession of the portion for 40 years, even before the plaintiffs bought the house. This led the plaintiffs to file a civil suit on 29 August 1986, seeking a declaration of their title and possession of the portion occupied by Ajabrao, along with damages for use and occupation of the property.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21 October 1970 | Shri Narayan Janglujee Katare, Dokawdu Narayan Katare, Ajabrao Narayan Katare, and Kamlakar Narayan Katare sold the suit house to Laxminarayan Brijlal Jaiswal. |
| 11 October 1985 | The plaintiffs purchased the suit house from Laxminarayan Brijlal Jaiswal. |
| 29 August 1986 | The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Ajabrao seeking declaration of title and possession. |
| 22 March 1988 | The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding that Ajabrao had perfected his title by adverse possession. |
| 22 October 1991 | The Additional District Judge allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, setting aside the Trial Court’s judgment and decreeing the suit. |
| 28 April 2003 | The High Court allowed Ajabrao’s second appeal, setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. |
| 26 October 2017 | The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the First Appellate Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling that while the plaintiffs were the owners of the house, Ajabrao had acquired title to the portion he occupied through adverse possession. The plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Additional District Judge, who reversed the Trial Court’s decision, holding that Ajabrao had failed to prove adverse possession and was merely in permissive possession. The Additional District Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. Ajabrao then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, which overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit. The High Court held that the defendant had perfected his title by adverse possession. This led the plaintiffs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the concept of adverse possession and the interpretation of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs second appeals in India. The Supreme Court also discussed the nature of permissive possession versus adverse possession. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the grounds on which a second appeal can be filed in the High Court. It states that a second appeal can only be entertained if the case involves a substantial question of law.
The Court cited the case of T. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 570, stating that “mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner” and that such possession must be in denial of the true owner’s title.
The Court also referred to Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316, which held that “mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner.”
Arguments
Plaintiffs’ Arguments:
- The plaintiffs contended that they were the rightful owners of the suit house, having purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 11 October 1985.
- They argued that Ajabrao was in permissive possession of a portion of the house prior to their purchase.
- They submitted that they had revoked the permission for Ajabrao to occupy the property and were entitled to claim possession based on their title.
- The plaintiffs asserted that Ajabrao had failed to establish his claim of adverse possession as his possession was not hostile, open, and continuous.
Defendant’s Arguments:
- Ajabrao claimed that he had been in possession of the portion of the suit house for 40 years, much before the plaintiffs purchased it.
- He alleged that the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-title had not sold the house to Laxminarayan Brijlal Jaiswal but had mortgaged it.
- Ajabrao argued that his possession was adverse to both the plaintiffs and Jaiswal due to his long and continuous possession.
- He contended that he had perfected his title over the portion of the suit house through adverse possession.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of the Suit House | Plaintiffs purchased the house through a registered sale deed. | Plaintiffs |
| Nature of Possession | Ajabrao was in permissive possession prior to the purchase. | Plaintiffs |
| Revocation of Permission | Plaintiffs revoked the permission, entitling them to possession. | Plaintiffs |
| Adverse Possession | Ajabrao’s possession was not hostile, open, and continuous. | Plaintiffs |
| Duration of Possession | Ajabrao had been in possession for 40 years. | Defendant |
| Sale vs. Mortgage | The original transaction was a mortgage, not a sale. | Defendant |
| Adverse Possession | Ajabrao’s possession was adverse to both plaintiffs and Jaiswal. | Defendant |
| Perfection of Title | Ajabrao had perfected his title through adverse possession. | Defendant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was:
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.
- Whether the defendant had successfully established a claim of adverse possession over a portion of the suit property.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was perverse and against settled principles of law. The High Court had re-appreciated the evidence like a first appellate court, which was not permissible in a second appeal. |
| Whether the defendant had successfully established a claim of adverse possession over a portion of the suit property. | The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had failed to prove adverse possession. The court noted that the defendant’s pleadings lacked essential elements such as when and how his assertion of ownership began, and whether it was against the true owners. The court also held that the defendant had not presented any documentary evidence to support his claim. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases and legal principles:
| Authority | Court | How it was Used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| T. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 570 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that mere possession, however long, does not necessarily mean it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be in denial of the true owner’s title. | Adverse Possession |
| Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to reiterate that adverse possession requires hostile possession, which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the true owner’s title. The possession must be adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent. | Adverse Possession |
| Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | – | The Court referred to this provision to highlight that the High Court’s interference in the second appeal was not permissible as it involved findings of fact and not a substantial question of law. | Second Appeal |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs’ ownership based on registered sale deed | The Court upheld the plaintiffs’ ownership based on the registered sale deed. |
| Defendant’s claim of adverse possession | The Court rejected the defendant’s claim of adverse possession due to lack of proper pleading and proof. |
| Defendant’s possession for 40 years | The Court held that mere long possession is not sufficient to establish adverse possession. |
| Defendant’s claim that the initial transaction was a mortgage | The Court did not consider this argument as the defendant failed to prove the same. |
| Plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant was in permissive possession | The Court agreed that the defendant was in permissive possession, which was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- T. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 570: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that mere possession, however long, does not automatically translate to adverse possession.
- Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316: The Court relied on this authority to reiterate the essential elements of adverse possession, including hostile possession, continuity, publicity, and extent.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of proper pleading and proof of adverse possession by the defendant. The Court emphasized that a claim of adverse possession requires specific assertions about the nature of possession, its commencement, and its hostility towards the true owner. The Court also highlighted that the High Court had erred in re-appreciating the facts in a second appeal, which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court also noted that the defendant had failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim of adverse possession.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Proper Pleading | 30% |
| Lack of Proof | 30% |
| High Court’s Error in Second Appeal | 25% |
| Permissive Possession | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
Plaintiffs claim ownership based on registered sale deed
Defendant claims adverse possession due to long possession
Court examines pleadings and evidence for adverse possession
Court finds defendant’s pleadings and evidence insufficient
Court concludes defendant’s possession was permissive, not adverse
Court upholds plaintiffs’ ownership and right to possession
The Supreme Court considered and rejected the argument that the defendant had perfected his title through adverse possession. The Court found that the defendant’s claim lacked the necessary elements of hostile, open, and continuous possession. The Court also noted that the defendant had failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his claim. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession, and the defendant had failed to discharge this burden.
The Court stated, “mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner”. The Court further observed, “the plea of adverse possession was neither properly pleaded and nor made out by the respondents”. The Court concluded that, “it was a clear case of permissive possession where Ajabrao was allowed to occupy the two rooms in the suit house by the appellants’ predecessor”.
Key Takeaways
- A claim of adverse possession requires specific pleadings and proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession for a period of 12 years.
- Mere long possession is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
- The burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession.
- Second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be used to re-appreciate factual findings unless a substantial question of law is involved.
- Permissive possession does not create any right, title, or interest in the property.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court, thereby decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit against the respondents.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of adverse possession must be supported by specific pleadings and proof of hostile, open, and continuous possession for a period of 12 years. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere long possession is not sufficient to establish adverse possession. It also clarifies that second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be used to re-appreciate factual findings unless a substantial question of law is involved. This decision reaffirms the importance of proper pleading and proof in cases involving adverse possession.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the plaintiffs, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the First Appellate Court’s decision. The Court held that the defendant had failed to establish his claim of adverse possession due to lack of proper pleading and proof. The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific pleadings and evidence in cases involving adverse possession and clarifies the limitations of second appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.