Supreme Court Upholds Possessory Rights in Property Dispute: Shivshankara vs. Vedavyasa (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 29, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 259

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a person who was illegally dispossessed of a property reclaim it, even if they don’t hold the title? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute in Bangalore. The core issue revolved around whether prior possession of a property could be a valid basis for a claim to recover possession against a party who does not have a better title. The bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by H.P. Vedavyasa Char (the respondent) against Shivshankara and others (the appellants). The respondent initially sought a permanent injunction to prevent the appellants from interfering with his property rights. The suit property was a house, part of which was described as ‘B schedule’ and another part as ‘C schedule’. Later, the respondent amended the suit to include a prayer for possession of the ‘B schedule’ property and an injunction against interference with the ‘C schedule’ property.

The appellants, who are the sons of the third defendant, contested the suit, arguing that the suit was not maintainable, lacked a prayer for possession, was incorrectly valued, and did not include the real owners of the property. The third defendant passed away during the pendency of the suit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, ordering the appellants to hand over possession of the ‘B’ schedule property to the respondent. The appellants then appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to produce additional evidence, arguing they were not given a chance to present their case. The High Court allowed this and remanded the case back to the Trial Court. The respondent then challenged this order in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court clarified that the suit was not under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and modified the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to record additional evidence and submit a report to the High Court, which would then decide the appeal. The Trial Court recorded the evidence, and the High Court then dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decree.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the concept of possessory rights and the principle of jus tertii.

• Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: This section allows a person dispossessed of immovable property to recover possession by filing a suit within six months of dispossession. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this suit was not under this provision.
• Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act: This section deals with the doctrine of lis pendens, which states that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit. The court applied the principle of this provision, even though the Transfer of Property Act might not directly apply, based on justice, equity, and good conscience.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The court referred to Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the production of additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Arguments

The appellants raised several arguments against the High Court’s decision:

• Lack of Possession: The appellants argued that the respondent failed to prove his possession over the ‘B’ schedule property.

• Abatement of Suit: They contended that the suit should have abated because the respondent did not bring all the legal representatives of the third defendant on record after his death.

• Ownership: The appellants claimed that the second defendant had purchased the suit property from Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao, making him the rightful owner.

• Maintainability of Suit: The appellants argued that the suit was not maintainable as it was based on possessory title and the second defendant was the lawful owner of the suit property.

• Non-Joinder of Parties: They argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the real owners of the suit property, Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao, were not made parties to the suit.

The respondent countered these arguments by asserting his prior possession and illegal dispossession by the appellants. He maintained that the suit was maintainable based on possessory title, and the appellants’ claims of ownership were not valid. The respondent also contended that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of parties, as the appellants were already representing the interest of the deceased third defendant.

The appellants tried to introduce new arguments at the appellate stage, claiming that the second defendant had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. The High Court rejected these arguments, noting that the appellants had not raised these points in their initial written statement and had been given multiple opportunities to do so.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement.
2. Whether the suit was maintainable based on possessory title.
3. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Whether the suit should have abated against all the defendants for non-substitution of all the legal heirs on the death of the original third defendant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also referred to Salmond on the Law of Torts, 17th Edition, 1977, to explain the principle of jus tertii.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that:

The Court emphasized that the appellants’ attempt to introduce new pleas at the appellate stage was not permissible, especially when they had failed to raise these issues in their initial written statement. The Court also noted that the principle of jus tertii, which refers to the right of a third party, cannot be used as a defense against a claim based on prior possession.

The Court also noted that the principle of lis pendens would apply, rendering any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit subservient to the rights of the parties to a litigation.

The Court held that the suit was rightly decreed based on the respondent’s prior possession and illegal dispossession by the appellants.

The Court also held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the appellants were already representing the interest of the deceased defendant.

“In such circumstances, when the facts disclose no title in either party, at the relevant time, prior possession alone decides the right to possession of land in the assumed character of owner against all the world except against the rightful owner.”

“The Court cannot travel beyond the pleadings as no party can lead the evidence on an issue/point not raised in the pleadings and in case, such evidence has been adduced or a finding of fact has been recorded by the court, it is just to be ignored.”

“The sound reasons given by the courts below persuade us to answer it in the negative. After carefully considering the evidence on record the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein/the plaintiff is entitled to get back the possession of suit schedule property from which he was dispossessed and even after careful consideration of the additional evidence recorded and transmitted to the High Court by the trial court and considering all contentions and aspects with reference to plethora of decisions the High Court only confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Prior Possession: The Court gave significant weight to the respondent’s established prior possession of the property. This was a crucial factor in determining the right to possession.
• Lack of Pleadings: The appellants’ failure to raise necessary defenses in their written statement was a major factor. The Court emphasized that evidence without proper pleadings is of no relevance.
• Belated Claims: The Court was critical of the appellants’ attempt to introduce new arguments at the appellate stage, especially when they had been given ample opportunity to raise these issues earlier.
• Principle of Jus Tertii: The Court rejected the appellants’ attempt to use the rights of third parties (Sriman Madhwa Sangha and Sri Vittal Rao) to defend their illegal dispossession of the respondent.
• Principle of Lis Pendens: The Court applied the principle of lis pendens to disregard the sale deed executed in favour of the second appellant during the pendency of the suit.
• Representation of the Estate: The Court held that the appellants, being legal heirs of the deceased defendant, were already on record and defending the suit. Therefore, the suit did not abate due to non-substitution of all legal heirs.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal principles, with a greater emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s prior possession and the appellants’ lack of proper pleadings.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Prior possession can be a valid basis for a claim to recover possession of property, even against someone with a better title, unless the rightful owner claims it.
• It is crucial to raise all defenses and claims in the initial written statement. Courts are reluctant to allow amendments at the appellate stage, especially if it would lead to a de novo trial.
• The principle of jus tertii cannot be used to defend against a claim based on prior possession.
• The principle of lis pendens applies to transfers of property during the pendency of a suit.
• When legal representatives are already on record, the suit will not abate due to non-substitution of all legal heirs.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prior possession is a valid basis for a claim to recover possession of property, particularly when the dispossessor does not have a better title. This reaffirms the principle that possession is a good title against all but the true owner. The court also reinforced the importance of proper pleadings and the limitations on introducing new pleas at the appellate stage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of prior possession in property disputes and the need for proper pleadings. This judgment clarifies that a person illegally dispossessed of a property can reclaim it based on prior possession, even if they do not hold the title, and the principle of jus tertii cannot be used as a defense against such a claim.