ACHAL REDDI versus RAMAKRISHNA REDDIAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 17-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ACHAL REDDI 
v. 
RAMAKRISHNA REDDIAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1989 
[G.L. OZA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963: Section 65-Adverse possession-Implies 
commenced" in wrong and maintained against right-Purchaser getting 
possession under executory contract of sale-Whether could contend 
possession was adverse. 
A, the owner of the land in question, conveyed possession of it to B 
under an oral agreement of sale. A deed was drawn up within about a 
week, but before it could be registered, A died and his sons executed a 
sale-deed in respect of the land, in favour of C. Aggrieved, B instituted 
a suit against C and A's sons for specific performance. B died during 
the pendency of the suit and his son D was impleaded as his legal 
representative. The suit was decreed in favour of D. Though the decree 
became final, it was not executed. 
C filed a suit alleging that he was put in possession by D and that 
E and others tresspassed into the property. E contested the suit on the 
gronnd that D had orally transferred his rights and conveyed possession 
to him for valuable consideration. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On 
appeal, the first appellate court held that C was not entitled to a decree. 
On appeal to the High Court, the Learned Single Judge held that 
B's possession was adverse to A on the assumption that a sale had been 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
effected orally leaving only execution of the sale deed to be done later 
F 
and so, C would not be entitled to add the period before the sale in his 
favour on 6.6.49 for the purpose of calculating the period of possession 
for 12 years, prior to the suit, and that such possession could not enure 
to his benefit under the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the concurrent 
findings of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court on the question 
of C's title had not been challenged. 
G 
The Division Bench reversed the above judgment holding that the 
Learned Single Judge failed to apply the correct legal position on the 
assumption that the transaction of IO. 7 .46 was only an oral sale. 
This appeal by special leave has been filed by E against the judg-
H 
ment of the Division Bench. 
193 
A 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. If a person is in actual possession and has a right to 
possession under a title involving a due recognition of the owner's title 
his possession will not be regarded as adverse in law, even though he 
claims under another title having regard to the well recognised policy of 
B law that possession is never considered adverse if it is referable to a 
lawful title. The purchaser who got into possession under an executory 
contract of sale in a permissible character cannot contend that his pos-
session was adverse. Adverse possession implies that it commenced in 
wrong and is maintained against right. When the commencement and 
\ 
c 
continuance of possession is legal and proper, referable to a contract, it 
cannot be adverse. ll98F-G; 199A] 
2.1 In the case of an executory contract of sale where the trans-
feree is put in possession of the property in pursuance of the agreement 
of sale and where the parties contemplate the execution of a regular 
registered sale deed and animus of the purchaser throughout is that he 
D is in possession of the property belonging to the vendor and that the 
former's title has to be perfected by a duly executed registered deed of 
sale under which the vendor has to pass on and convey his title. The 
purchaser's possession in such cases is of a derivative character and in 
clear recognition of and in acknowledgement of the title of the vendor. 
The position is different in the case where in pursuance of an oral 
£ transfer or a deed of transfer not registered the owner of a property 
transfers the property and puts the transferee in possession with the 
clear animus and on the distinct understanding-that from.that time 
onwards he shall have no right of title to the property. In such a case the 
owner of the property does not retain any vestige o.f right in regard to 
the property and his mental attitude towards the property is that it has 
F ceased to belong to him altogether. The transferee after getting into 
possession retains the same with the clear animus that he has become 
the absolute owner of the property and in complete negation of any 
right or title of the transferor, his enjoyment is solely as owner in his 
right and not derivatively or in recog

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.