Declaration Of Title Can Be Sought Based On Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Reiterates

Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that a suit for declaration of title based on the plea of an adverse possession can be filed by the plaintiff.

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, while referring to the Judgment of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur observed that it is a settled position of law that a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title by adverse possession.

“This Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur; 2019 (8) SCC 729 settled the law and laid down the principle that a plaintiff can seek a declaration of title by adverse possession.”

In the present, the appellants were the original plaintiff in the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction based on adverse possession to restrain the defendants from taking forcible possession of the subject land.

It was contended by the plaintiff that he was in continuous possession of subject land from 1957 to 1981 which was sold to him for a consideration less than Rs. 100/- for which registration of sale deeds is not required. Thus, he claimed ownership over the subject land based on adverse possession.

However, it was contended by the defendant that the sale deed could not be executed in favor of the plaintiff without his consent because of himself being a co-sharer in the property.

The suit was decreed in favor of the appellant by the trial court. Moreover, the appellate court also maintained the status quo on the trial court's order.

The respondent(s) preferred the second appeal before the High Court, which came to be allowed and the observations passed by the trial court and the appellate court were set aside.

The High Court observed that the plea of adverse possession only available to the defendant and not to the plaintiff.

“Both the courts below have discarded the title of both the parties on the basis of sale deeds in view of findings recorded under Issue No.6 but decreed the suit of the plaintiff solely on the plea of adverse possession for which there is no justifiable reasons shown in terms of necessary ingredients as well as maintainability of the suit itself. Resultantly, this court finds that a suit for declaration, on the basis of adverse possession, is not maintainable. This plea is not available to the plaintiff rather this plea is available to the defendant against the plaintiff. This legal proposition if read in conjunction with missing ingredients of adverse possession, make this court to hold that the suit of the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the same are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the suit itself is dismissed leaving both the parties to bear their own costs.”, the High Court observed.

It is against the aforementioned impugned order of the High Court, that the appellant plaintiff preferred a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

The court after perusing the impugned judgment of the High Court noted that the High Court allowed the second appeal only on the ground that a plea of the adverse possession cannot be taken by the plaintiff.

Disagreeing with the view taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the instant civil appeals and set aside the impugned judgment/order of the High Court.

“In view of the fact that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in RSA No. 1626 of 1987 and Review Application No. 8-C of 2015 dated 05.12.2014 and 02.05.2016 respectively and allow the appeals.”

Case Details: IDU THROUGH LRS. & ORS. Vs. NIZAM DIN (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 82

Click here to read the order