Supreme Court Upholds Permissive Possession, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Jit Ram vs. Satnam Singh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a person who was allowed to use a property claim it as their own after a certain period? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute, clarifying the concept of adverse possession. The Court had to determine if the respondent’s possession was permissive, thus not qualifying for adverse possession, or hostile, which would allow him to claim ownership. This judgment underscores the importance of establishing hostile intent for a successful claim of adverse possession.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The dispute began after the death of Banta on 02 July 1992. Banta had two children: Jit Ram and Sibo. Sibo, though married, lived with her father. After Banta’s death, Sibo claimed ownership of 5 kanals of land based on a will allegedly executed by Banta on 26 June 1992. She filed a suit to prevent Jit Ram from interfering with her possession. This suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, on 28 April 1998, who found the will to be suspicious.

Satnam Singh, a relative of Sibo and Jit Ram, claimed he had erected a temporary structure on the land with Banta’s consent and was in occupation of it. His appeal was also dismissed on 14 January 2003. Subsequently, Jit Ram filed a suit against Satnam Singh for possession of the land where the structure was located. Satnam Singh claimed an independent interest based on a will from Sibo and alternatively claimed adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed Jit Ram’s suit on 11 April 2011, citing adverse possession and limitation.

Jit Ram then appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled in his favor on 19 July 2013, stating that Sibo could not confer any title to Satnam Singh and that Satnam Singh’s possession was permissive. Satnam Singh then approached the High Court, which reversed the Appellate Court’s decision on adverse possession, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case began in the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, where Sibo’s suit was dismissed. The matter then went to the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, where Satnam Singh’s appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, Jit Ram’s suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, which was then overturned by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Finally, the High Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the concept of adverse possession. Adverse possession is a legal principle where a person who is not the legal owner of a property can claim ownership if they have been in continuous, open, and hostile possession of the property for a specified period. The possession must be “hostile” to the true owner, meaning it must be without the owner’s permission and with the intention to claim ownership. Permissive possession, on the other hand, is when someone occupies a property with the owner’s consent, and this type of possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Jit Ram through LRs):

• The appellant argued that the respondent’s possession of the property was purely permissive. This means that the respondent was allowed to occupy the property by the owner, and therefore, his possession could not be considered as hostile.
• The appellant contended that the respondent’s possession lacked the necessary element of hostility required for a claim of adverse possession.
• The appellant argued that since Sibo’s claim to the property was dismissed in the earlier round, she could not have conferred any title with respect to the property by a Will in favour of the Respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments (Satnam Singh):

• The respondent claimed that he had an independent interest in the property by virtue of a will executed by Sibo in his favor.
• The respondent alternatively argued that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, claiming that he had been in open and hostile possession of the property since 1989.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:

• Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the finding of the Appellate Court on the issue of adverse possession.
• Whether the Respondent’s possession was permissive or hostile.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment. The court primarily focused on the factual matrix of the case and the established principles of adverse possession and permissive possession.

Judgment

The Court observed that the High Court erred in accepting the Second Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court’s finding that the possession of the Respondent was purely permissive in character was correct and there was no occasion for the High Court to set aside that finding. The Court stated that “At no stage the possession was hostile to the owners of the property. The element of hostility was completely missing.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the finding that the respondent’s possession was permissive and not hostile. The court emphasized that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner. The absence of hostility in the respondent’s possession was the key factor in the court’s decision.

The Court also considered the fact that the structure on the land was put up by the respondent. The Court, however, noted that the structure was dilapidated and had a minimal value. The Court directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent towards the cost of the structure.

Key Takeaways

• Permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession.
• For a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be hostile to the true owner.
• The element of hostility is a crucial component of adverse possession.
• Even if a person has been in possession of a property for a long time, if the possession is permissive, they cannot claim adverse possession.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent towards the cost of the structure. The amount was to be deposited in the Trial Court and released to the respondent if he vacates and hands over possession of the structure to the appellants within two weeks after the deposit. If the respondent refuses to vacate and hand over possession, he would not be entitled to the sum, and the appellants would be entitled to execute the decree passed by the Appellate Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession. The judgment reinforces the established legal position that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be hostile to the true owner. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms existing legal doctrines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Jit Ram’s legal heirs, setting aside the High Court’s judgment on adverse possession. The Court held that Satnam Singh’s possession was permissive and lacked the necessary element of hostility for a claim of adverse possession. The Court directed the appellants to pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent for the structure on the land, subject to the respondent vacating the premises. This judgment reinforces the importance of hostile intent in claims of adverse possession and clarifies that permissive possession cannot be the basis for such claims.