Explore a case where a court delves deep into the nuances of property ownership and adverse possession. The court’s legal analysis provides valuable insights into how conflicting claims based on a sale deed and adverse possession were scrutinized and adjudicated. Follow along as we uncover the intricate legal reasoning behind the court’s decision in this intriguing land dispute case.
Facts
- The First Appellate Court decreed the suit for title on adverse possession and issued a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant.
- The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 but the Court did not grant rights based on this deed.
- The original plaintiffs perfected their title through adverse possession, as determined by the First Appellate Court.
- The Trial Court initially dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiffs.
- High Court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the appellant.
- High Court did not interfere with the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court.
- First Appellate Court had found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since after the execution of the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967.
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the second appeal is the subject matter of the present appeal.
- Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Issue
- The High Court framed the substantial question of law regarding the error in the First Appellate Court’s decision on the plaintiff’s title perfected through adverse possession.
Also Read: Quashing of Enhanced Tuition Fee in Private Medical Colleges
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership based on a registered Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 was rejected by all courts.
- The only remaining question was the claim of ownership by adverse possession.
- The High Court initially favored the appellant on the issue of adverse possession, but ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision decreeing the suit for title and permanent injunction.
- The appellant’s counsel contended that since the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership, they cannot claim title through adverse possession.
- It was emphasized that the plaintiffs’ possession of the land could only be seen as encroachment.
- Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, appearing for the respondent No.2 State as a proforma respondent, did not add any additional information.
- It was argued that both the First Appellate Court and the High Court made errors in granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
Also Read: Final Decision and Disclosure in Collegium Meetings
Analysis
- The High Court has observed that ownership based on sale deed and adverse possession cannot be claimed simultaneously.
- The High Court framed a substantial question of law in favor of the appellant – original defendant No. 1 regarding adverse possession.
- The original plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967, which was rejected by all courts.
- The only claim left for the plaintiffs was adverse possession, which was also not tenable as per the High Court.
- Since the substantial question of law on adverse possession was decided in favor of the appellant and the ownership claim based on the Sale Deed was rejected, the plaintiffs’ possession could not be protected by a decree of permanent injunction.
- The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal was based on a material error
- The judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court was confirmed by the High Court
- The High Court failed to consider important factors in the case
- The circumstances of the case were not given due consideration by the High Court
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999 has been quashed and set aside.
- The judgment and order of the First Appellate Court are also quashed and set aside.
- The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit has been restored.
- The present appeal has been allowed and succeeds.
Case Title: KESAR BAI Vs. GENDA LAL (2022 INSC 1092)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007129-007129 / 2022
