BALKRISHAN versus SATYAPRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 22-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALKRISHAN 
v. 
SATY APRAKASH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 22, 2001 
B 
[S.S.M. QUADRI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959: 
C 
Section 250--Adverse possession- Suit land under orders of attachment 
was purchased by plaintiff from its owners-In the auction sale of the suit 
land R purchased it-Application filed by R for restoration of possession qf 
land-Despite orders of Tehsildar to put R in possession of suit land plaintiff 
remained in possession-Subsequently R sold suit land to defendants-Suit . 
D for declaration of title filed by plaintiff -Trial court held that the plaintiff 
had been in continuous possession of the suit land and perfected his title by 
adverse possession-First appellate court affirmed the decree-However, High 
Court allowed the second appeal-Correctness of-Held:_ A person claiming 
title by adverse possession must show that his possession is adequate in 
continuity, in publicity and in extent-Despite order of Tehsildar the plaintiff 
E continued in possession and, therefore, his possession was neither interrupted 
nor lost-Order of Tehsildar to handover possession does not cause 
discontinuation of possession-Hence, High Court erred in setting aside the 
judgment of the first appellate court-Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 65. 
The appellant purchased the suit land, which was under attachment by 
F orders of the Tehsildar. In the auction that followed the attachment. the suit 
land was purchased by R. Thereafter, R filed an application under Section 
250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 against tbe appellant claiml111 
restoration of possession of the suit land. Despite the order or the Tehsildar 
to put R in possession of the suit land, the appellant remained in possession. 
G Subsequently, R. sold the suit land to the respondents. 
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent 
injunction. The trial court held that the appellant had been in continuous 
· possession orthe suit land and perf,ected his title by adverse poss~ion. The 
first appellate court confirmed this decision. However, the High Court set 
H aside this judgmenl Hence this appeal 
480 
' 
.... 
BALKRISHAN v. SATY APRAKASH 
481 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that there was an order A 
of the Tehsildar to handover possession of the suit land to the respondents 
and, therefore, the appellant could not claim to be in continuous uninterrupted 
possession. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove 
three "nee"-nec vi, nee clam and nee precario. In other words, he must show 
that his possession is adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent. 
1483-G-HI 
S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR (1964) SC 1254, relied on. 
B 
c 
2. I. The fact remained that in spite of the order of the Tehsildar 
against the appellant, which was not acted upon, nor executed, the appellant 
continued in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the continuity of his 
possession of the suit land was neither interrupted nor lost. Mere passing D 
of an order of ejectment against a person claiming to be in adverse possession 
neither causes his dispossession nor discontinuation of his possession, 
which alone breaks the continuity of possession. 1484-G-H; 485-AI 
.2.2. The fact that under Section 250(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code; 
1959 read with Section 38 thereof the Tehsildar was bound to restore E 
possession of the suit land would make no difference and it is difficult to 
accept .the contention that failure of the Tehsildar in handing over possession 
would have the effect of causing discontinuatio·n of possession of the suit land 
by the appellant so as to prevent such possession from ripening into adverse 
possession afttr the statutory period. 1285-81 
Singaravelu Mudaliar v. Chokka Mudaliar, AIR (1923) Mad 28 (2) and 
Shaik Mukbool Ali v. Shaik Wajed Hoossein, AIR (1923) Mad 88 (2), approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4031 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.94 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court in C.S.A.No. 161of1991. 
Niraj Shanna for the Appellant. 
F 
G 
M.P .. Venna, K. Pandey and Ms. Anita Pandey for the Respondents. 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal, by special leave, 
is from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench 
at Gwalior) in Civil Second Appeal

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