GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT versus DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 03-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

287 
A 
GAYA PARSHAD OIKSHIT 
' 
v. 
DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR. 
January:;,, 1984 · 
[P.N: BHAGWATl, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND D. P. MADON, JJ.] 
Litnitatio11 A.ct 1963, Article 65, 'title by adverse ·possession':Clabn of-
Licence tenninated by itotice-Suit for possdssion-Licence to show by overt act that 
he is cla1ning adverse title . 
. 
The respondents filed a suit for r.ecovery .of possession of the preniises (rorn 
the appellant after terfuination of his licence. The appellant cf aimed title _b.Y adverse 
possession. 
. The High· Court held' that mere termination of the licence of a liccncee does· 
not enable th,e .licence to clalin adverse JJOSsession, unless and uritil he -sets up a 
title hostile to that of the liccncer after tennination of hisMicencc, and decreed the 
suit for possession. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : I. There ~nust be so1ne overt act on the pa-~1 of th~ licencee indi~ating 
assertion bf hostile title. Mere continuance o( unauthorised possession even for 
. a period of1nore tha'n 12.years is not enou~h. [288 bJ 
2. It is -not n1erely unauthorised possession on -tenni11atio11 of his licence 
t_hat enables the licencee to- claim title by adverse possession but there must ·be 
some overt act on the part of the licencee to show that ·he is clain1ing adYerse title. 
It is pos.sible that the licencor n1ay not file an action fur the purpose of recovering 
possessic:>n of the prcimises from the licencee after Jern1inatlng his licence but that 
by itself can~ot enable the licencee to claim thk:_ by adverse possession·. (288 Cf 
. In th. instant case, the High ~ Cou~t was ri~ht •ill taking- the view that the 
appellant had not establisPed any title by adverse possession, and that the suit of 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant 
G. 
was not barr~d under Article 65 of the Lin1itatioil A~t, 1963. (288 E-FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE J.URISDJCTION: Civil Appeal 'No ... J8·)] of 1978. 
From the judgment and ordel' dated· 24th August; f~l78 of the 
H 
Allahabad High Court in sec?nd Appeal No, 1287 of _1974.) 
· 
288 
·SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984] 2 s.c;R. 
A 
S, . Markendeya for the Appellant, 
BC Afarwala .for the Respondents . 
. The Judgment of the court was delivered bv 
~ 
.. 
• 
B. . 
BHAGWATl: ACTING CJ. We. Jiave'h~ard the learned counsel 
on behalf of the appellant and after hearing hi~ and persuing the 
judgment ·of the .High Court, we find ourselves wholly in agreement 
with the' view t.aken by the. High Court that mere termin~tion of the 
licence' of a licencce does not enable the licencee to claim ad~erse 
. possession, .unless ·and until he sets up a title hostile io that of the 
· C · 
· licencor after termination ·of his licence,' It is not. merely un·authorised 
. 
·~ 
possession 011 termination of his licence that enables ihe licencee to · 
·claitn title ):iy adver;e 'possession but there musi be some overt a~t ori 
the pat't of ihc licencee to sho~ that he ·is claiming adverse title: Jt 
is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose ·of 
. recovering possession of the premises from the licencee after termina-
n 
ting his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licencee to claim 
· title by ~dverse jlossession. °There must be some overt act on the 
part of the licence<1; indicating assertion of.hostiie title. Mere con-
. tin1iance. of uriauthorised possession even for a period of more than 
. .12 years is n.ot enough: .Here in the present case there is nothing to 
show that at a·ny time after termination of his licence by Dr: Rama 
E 
Shanker or by tl;e first repo~dent' the appellant asserted hostile title 
in hims~lf. The High \ourt was, therefore, rigl1t in t,aking.the view 
that t!J..e ·.,ppellanf had not established any title by adverse. possession 
and iii that view of the matter," the suit of the first respondent for 
recovery of possession of the premises ffom the appellant was not 
barred under article 65 which is the only article of the LimitationAet, 
f 
1963 applicable ·in the present .case. We accordingly confirm the 
G 
H 
judg111ent ofthe ]i:igh Co!Jrl and dismiss !lie appeal. 
· 
·Mr. Markandeya,. learned. counsel appearing on behalf 6f the 
. appellant, has urged that the appellant has be~n in possession of the 
·premises which consist ofr9oms Nos. I, 4 and 5 shown in fhe Amin's 
map marked l6/5C since his birth and it would cause considerable 
hardship 10 him if he wereto be ev.icted from these

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