BONDAR SINGH AND ORS. versus NIHAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BONDAR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
NIHAL SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 4, 2003 
B 
[RC. LAHOTI AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ ] 
Transfer of 'Property Act, 1882: 
Adverse possession-Suit for declaration-Claim of ownership of land 
C in dispute by adverse possession-Possession of p!aintiffi claimed to be on the 
basis of sale deed-Defendants denied possession of plaintiff and asserted 
their possession-Evidence on record proving possession of plaintiffi-Suit 
decreed-Dismissal of suit by lower appellate court-In second appeal suit 
decreed by High Court-Plea of defendants at appellate stage that possession 
D of plaintiffi was as sub-tenant (shikmi)-However, best evidence to prove sub-
tenancy kept awizy from court, though available-On appeal, Held: evidence 
on record proves continuous and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiffi-
Hence the plea of adverse possession established-Plea of plaintiffi being 
sub-tenants is devoid of merit as the same is not proved in the facts of the 
case. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Code of Civil Procedure: 
Section J 00-Second Appeal-Scope of-Held, if findings of sutordinate 
courts on facts are contrary to evidence on record and are perverse, such 
finding can be set aside by High Court. 
Order VJJJ Rule 2-Specific plea-Absence of-Effect thereof-Held, in 
the absence of a plea no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be 
looked into. 
Evidence: 
Unstamped and unregistered sale deed-Evidentiary value of-Held, 
such document though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for 
collateral purpose. 
'F' father of the appellants-defendants sold the land in question to 
564 
J 
BONDAR SINGH v. NIHAL SINGH 
565 
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a suit A 
in 1972 claiming to have entered into possession of the land on the basis 
of an unregistered and unstamped sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by father of 
defendants to their predecessor-in-interest, and had been in possession 
since then and as such they had become owners by adverse possession. In 
the written statement defendants denied the sale of the land and the 
possession of the plaintiffs. They took the plea that their father was in B 
possession of the land till his death and after his death their mother had 
given possession of the land to predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for 
the purpose of cultivation; that they had taken back possession of the land 
from him in 1957-58; that after the death of their father the land had been 
mutated in their names in the revenue records; and that there was no C 
question of adverse possession by the. plaintiffs as the land was actually 
in their possession. They claimed that the receiver appointed with respect 
to the suit land in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was on their 
behalf. During trial, defendants had not produced their mother and the 
eldest son of 'F' for evidence even though the eldest son was arrayed as 
defendant in the suit. 
D 
In a previous litigation a notice (Exbt. P.6) in 1956 was issued on 
behalf of the defendants addressed to the predecessor-in-interest of the 
plaintiffs calling upon him to hand over the possession of the suit land in 
question herein, kl them. Thereafter an application was filed in 1956 by E 
the defendants before the Revenue authorities wherein they admitted that 
the land in question was in possession of the plaintiffs since the life time 
of their father and that the land was being cultivated by the plaintiffs. 
They had prayed in the said application that the plaintiffs be declared 
trespassers. In that application, the plaintiffs had denied the allegation of 
being trespassers and claimed to be in possession of the land in their own F 
right on the strength of sale deed dated 9.5.1931 executed by father of the 
defendants to their predecessor. Therein the eldest son of 'F' had admitted 
that plaintiffs were in possession for the last 26 to 27 years. Relying on 
the said admission the Revenue authorities dismissed the application and 
the appeal against the same was also dismissed in 1962. 
Trial court decreed the suit. Appeal against the trial court judgment 
was allowed. In second appeal High Court decreed the suit holding that 
the finding recorded by the Appellate Court was based on surmises and 
conjectures and was contrary to the evidence on record and the law and 
G 
it came to a definite finding that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A came in possession of the 

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