LexBRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 60 : 2024 INSC 9 Case Details Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012) 03 January 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights by adverse possession. Headnotes Adverse possession – Suit by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession – Dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed – Justification: Held: Appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed in 1966 – Dispute for possession vis-à-vis the respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior to it – From the date of the sale deed, the suit was filed within the period of 12 years in 1975 – Even if it is assumed that the respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse – There were no proceedings for possession prior to 1966 – First appellate court having recorded a specific finding that the land in suit was not covered by Zamindari Abolition as it was non-agricultural land, the claim of ownership from the date of abolition of Zamindari was also without any merit – Respondents thus having failed to establish their title, would have no right to retain the possession – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession is maintained. [Paras 9.5-9.6] [2024] 1 S.C.R. 61 BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. v. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and Appearances CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7502 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in SA No.202 of 1980. Appearances: Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Ms. Rimjhim Agnihotri, Shashwat Goel, Advs. for the Appellants. Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. The plaintiff is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing Second Appeal No.202 of 1980, Sudesh Kumar and others vs. Brij Narayan Shukla and others, whereby, both the judgments of the First Appeal Court and the Trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation being barred by time. 2. Dispute relates to an area of 3500 sq. ft. (70 ft. x 50 ft.) (2 Biswa 12 Biswani) of Plot No.1019 situated in Village Hardoi within the limits of Nagar Palika Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from the erstwhile Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. They also claimed to have received possession pursuant to the sale deed. It is also relevant to mention that the land purchased was an open piece of land. In 1975, when the appellant tried to raise the construction over the land purchased, the defendants objected and caused hindrance giving rise to the filing of the suit in question on 28.05.1975, registered as O.S.No.161 of 1975 praying for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession. 3. The defendant respondent filed their written statement primarily alleging that there had been prior proceedings between Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants (ancestors of the respondent) in the year 1944 where a suit was filed for arrears of rent with respect to Plot No.1019, 1022 and 1023. 62 [2024] 1 S.C.R. DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3.1 Further under the settlement between the Zamindar and co- sharers, the land in question came to Siddheshwari Narain and Deep Chandra in a private partition and as such these co-sharers became the owners of the land. 3.2 The defendant respondents having continued in possession at the time of abolition of Zamindari, became the owners. 3.3 Lastly, it was contended that soon afte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.