KALIKA PRASAD AND ANR. versus CHHATRAPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 18-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-.... 
KALIKA PRASAD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
CHHATRAPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. 
DECEMBER 18, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Suit filed by appellant for declaration of title and for possession of 
agricultural lands-Plea of adver~e possession by respondent-Trial Court 
finding that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession-Ap-
pellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the respondent had come C 
into possession under a power of attorney-The power of attorney given to 
respondent was cancelled and thereafter no action was taken to have him 
ejected-On second appeal High Court held that respondent had perfected his 
title by adverse possessiolt-High court recorded a finding that even after aboli-
tion of Estate Patta obtained by appellant till the date of filing of the suit, the D 
respondent had remained in uninterrupted possession-Appeal before 
Supreme Court~eld the respondent remained, without any interruption, for 
well over 12 years, in possession in assertion of his own right, that too after 
the abolition of the estate-Thereby, he perfected his title by prescription since 
any person who got superior right had taken no action to have him ejected 
from the lands-Under these circumstances, the finding recorded by the High E 
Court has not been vitiated by any manifest error of law creating any substan-
tial question of law for interference in this appeal. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1589 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.85 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 309 of 1980. 
A.K. Chitale, S.K. Agnihotri, Mrs. V.D. Khanna and Mrs. Yogamaya 
/,.gnihotri, for the Appellants. 
S.S. Khanduja, B.K. Satija and Y.P. Dhingra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned 
single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh made on October 12, H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1996] SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A 1985 in Second Appeal No. 309/80. 
The admitted facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a. suit for 
de~laration of title and for possession of agricultural lands covered under 
the schedule of the plaint. The respondent pleaded adverse possession. The 
B trial Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the respondent had perfected 
his title by adverse possession for having remained in possession for more 
than 12 years. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree on the 
ground that the respondent had come into possession under a power of 
attorney and, therefore, he remained to be in possession as an agent on 
C behalf of the principal. The appellant claimed title through one of the 
principals who had given power of attorney under Ex. P.3. Respondent 
admitted that he had come into possession thereunder and, therefore, he . 
cannot plead adverse possession against the appellant. In second appeal, 
the learned single Judge considered the controversy in relation to the 
documentary evidence and held thus : 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"The word 'Shikmi' used in the application has, therefore, to be 
construed in the context of the facts expressly stated therein. Ex. 
P-3 is the statement of defendant Chhatarpal Singh nowhere ad-
mitted his possession through the plaintiffs. He expressly stated 
that his possession was a result of an arrangement made before 
abolition of Jagirs. No doubt, he also said that the Pawaidars 
Ramkishore and Vimal Prasad had given Mukhtiyarnama, to begin 
with, but the Mukhtiyarnama was cancelled long back. He nowhere 
admitted the Mukhtiyarnama being given by plaintiffs Kalika 
Prasad and Ambika Prasad or his possession being through the 
plaintiffs at any time. Ex. P-4 is the order dated 3.6.1969 in that 
proceeding rejecting the defendant's application under Section 190 
of the Code. In my opinion, there is nothing in these docum91ts, 
which can be construed as defendant Chhatarpal Singh's admission 
of being inducted into the suit-land by the plaintiffs so as to 
constitute his possession as permissive through the plaintiffs. His 
admission of initial entry under a Mukhtiyaranama given by the 
other Pawaidars was only in respect of his possession prior to 
abolition of Jagirs and it is obvious that the same is of no conse-
quence after abolition of Jagirs, which itself is an event more than 
twelve years prior to the date of suit. The only remaining document 
t
KALIKAPRASADv. CHHATRAPALSINGH 
373 
for consideration is Ex

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