Supreme Court Upholds Wakf Board’s Ownership, Dismisses Adverse Possession Claim: Dharampal vs. Punjab Wakf Board (2017)

Can an individual claim ownership of Wakf land through adverse possession? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, clarifying the rights of Wakf Boards and the limitations on adverse possession claims. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting Wakf properties from unlawful encroachment. The bench comprised Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The Punjab Wakf Board, the plaintiff, owned a large parcel of land in Faridabad. The Board had leased part of this land to two individuals (respondents 2 and 3) for one year. However, they continued to occupy the land even after the lease expired. Meanwhile, Ram Swarup, the father of the original defendant (Dharampal), encroached upon the land starting in 1953.

The Wakf Board filed a suit in 1971 against Ram Swarup to regain possession of the land. This suit was dismissed for default in 1972. In 1991, the Wakf Board filed a fresh suit against Dharampal (Ram Swarup’s son), and the original tenants, seeking possession and an injunction against any changes to the land. Dharampal claimed ownership through adverse possession, asserting that his father’s and his own continuous possession since 1953 had given him title.

The Trial Court initially dismissed the Wakf Board’s suit and granted Dharampal’s counterclaim, declaring him the owner based on adverse possession. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, ruling in favor of the Wakf Board. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of Dharampal, accepting his claim of adverse possession. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that Dharampal had not established a valid claim of adverse possession. This decision was further upheld by the High Court. Dharampal then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions. The Wakf Act, 1954, governs the administration of Wakf properties. Section 66-G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984, specifies a 30-year period for establishing adverse possession against Wakf properties. Additionally, Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the bar on filing a fresh suit after a previous suit on the same cause of action has been dismissed for default.

Order 8 Rule 6A(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that a counter-claim is treated as a plaint. The Supreme Court also considered the interpretation of adverse possession as established in previous cases.

The Supreme Court also considered Section 55-C of the Wakf Act, 1954, as amended by Act No. 69 of 1984, which was argued to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters. However, this amendment was never notified and the entire Act was repealed by the Waqf Act, 1995. The Court also considered Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 which gave jurisdiction to the Civil Court to try the suit.

Arguments

Appellant (Dharampal)’s Submissions:

• Bar under Order 9 Rule 9: The appellant argued that the present suit was barred because a previous suit (74/1971) filed by the Wakf Board against his father was dismissed for default. Since no application for restoration was filed, the appellant contended that a fresh suit was barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

• Adverse Possession: The appellant claimed that his father had been in possession of the suit land since 1953, and after his father’s death in 1987, he continued in possession. This continuous possession, he argued, had perfected his title through adverse possession.

• Jurisdiction Bar under Section 55-C: The appellant contended that the suit was barred under Section 55-C of the Wakf Act, 1954, as amended in 1984, which transferred jurisdiction to the Wakf Tribunal.

Respondent (Wakf Board)’s Submissions:

• No bar under Order 9 Rule 9: The respondent argued that the previous suit was dismissed under Rule 3 of Order 9, which allows for a fresh suit. Furthermore, the parties and cause of action were different in the two suits as the previous suit was only against the father of the appellant, whereas the present suit was against the appellant and two other defendants.

• Adverse Possession not proven: The respondent contended that the appellant had not adequately pleaded or proven adverse possession. The respondent highlighted that the appellant did not specify when his possession became adverse, nor did he establish 30 years of continuous adverse possession as required for Wakf properties.

• Section 55-C not applicable: The respondent argued that the amendment to Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954, was never notified and the entire Act was repealed by the Waqf Act, 1995. Therefore, the bar on civil court jurisdiction was not applicable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the present suit is barred by virtue of the bar contained in Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Whether the appellant (defendant No.1) was able to establish his “adverse possession” over the suit land.
3. Whether the suit was barred by virtue of bar created under Section 55-C of the Wakf Act, 1954.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr., 2014 (1) SCC 669 (Supreme Court of India): This case established that a plaintiff cannot claim ownership based on adverse possession, but a defendant can use it as a defense. The Supreme Court relied on this case to reject the appellant’s counterclaim.

• T. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 570 (Supreme Court of India): This case clarified that mere possession, however long, does not constitute adverse possession. The possession must be in denial of the true owner’s title.

• Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterated that adverse possession requires hostile possession that is open, continuous, and in denial of the true owner’s title. The possession must be adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• The Wakf Act, 1954: This Act governs the administration of Wakf properties. The Supreme Court considered Section 6 of the Act which gave jurisdiction to the Civil Court to try the suit.

• Section 66-G of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1984: This provision specifies a 30-year period for establishing adverse possession against Wakf properties.

• Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule deals with the bar on filing a fresh suit after a previous suit on the same cause of action has been dismissed for default.

• Order 8 Rule 6A(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule states that a counter-claim is treated as a plaint.

• Section 55-C of the Wakf Act, 1954, as amended by Act No. 69 of 1984: This provision was argued to bar the jurisdiction of civil courts, but the court found that the amendment was never notified and the Act was repealed.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:

• The appellant’s failure to raise the plea of bar under Order 9 Rule 9 in the lower courts.
• The fact that the earlier suit was likely dismissed under Rule 3 of Order 9, which allows for a fresh suit.
• The difference in parties and cause of action between the earlier and present suits.
• The established legal principle that a plaintiff cannot claim ownership based on adverse possession.
• The appellant’s failure to adequately plead and prove adverse possession, including the specific date when his possession became adverse and the required 30-year continuous possession for Wakf properties.
• The fact that the amendment to Section 55 of the Wakf Act, 1954, was never notified and the entire Act was repealed by the Waqf Act, 1995, thereby not barring the civil court’s jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

• A plaintiff cannot claim ownership of property based on adverse possession. This plea can only be used as a defense.
• To claim adverse possession, especially against Wakf properties, one must demonstrate continuous, open, and hostile possession for 30 years.
• A fresh suit is not barred if a previous suit was dismissed for default under Rule 3 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Amendments to laws must be properly notified to be effective.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a plaintiff cannot claim ownership of property based on adverse possession, especially against Wakf properties, without demonstrating continuous, open, and hostile possession for 30 years. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala & Anr. [2014 (1) SCC 669] and clarifies the requirements for adverse possession claims, particularly in the context of Wakf properties. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision in favor of the Punjab Wakf Board. The Court reaffirmed that adverse possession cannot be used by a plaintiff to claim ownership and that a 30-year period of continuous, open and hostile possession is required to claim adverse possession against Wakf properties. The Court also clarified that a fresh suit is not barred if a previous suit was dismissed for default under Rule 3 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This judgment reinforces the protection of Wakf properties and clarifies the limitations on adverse possession claims.