KESAR BAI versus GENDA LAL & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 14-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
KESAR BAI
v.
GENDA LAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7129 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI JJ.]
Suit – Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent
injunction – On the basis of registered sale deed and also on basis
of adverse possession – Trial Court dismissed the suit – The First
Appellate held that the plaintiffs-respondent did not get any right
on basis of the sale deed – However, the First Appellate Court
decreed the suit for title on basis of adverse possession and
restrained the defendant-appellant from interfering with possession
of the plaintiffs-respondent – Second appeal before High Court
which framed substantial question of law on adverse possession
and decided the same in favour of appellant, however, thereafter
did not interfere with the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court – Held: All the Courts below negated the claim of original
plaintiffs of ownership on basis of registered Sale Deed – Therefore,
the only claim on behalf of plaintiffs was the plea of adverse
possession – So far as plea of adverse possession was concerned,
the High Court had specifically framed a substantial question of
law and as such held the same in favour of appellant-defendant –
High Court specifically observed and held that the plea of ownership
based on sale deed and plea of adverse possession, both, were
contrary to each other and the plaintiffs could not be permitted to
take both the pleas at the same time – Therefore, even as per the
High Court, the claim of plaintiffs on basis of the adverse possession
was not tenable – In that view of the matter and once the substantial
question of law on adverse possession was held in favour of
appellant- defendant and the title/ownership claimed on basis of
Sale Deed was negated by all the Courts below, thereafter the
possession/alleged possession of plaintiffs could not have been
protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction in favour of
the plaintiffs – Under the circumstances, the High Court materially
erred in confirming the judgment passed by the First Appellate
Court.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 564
564
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court has specifically observed and held
that the plea of ownership based on sale deed and plea of adverse
possession, both, are contrary to each other and the plaintiffs
cannot be permitted to take both the pleas at the same time.
Therefore, even as per the High Court, the claim of the plaintiffs
on the basis of the adverse possession was not tenable. In that
view of the matter and once the substantial question of law on
adverse possession was held in favour of the appellant – original
defendant No.1 and the title/ownership claimed on the basis of
the Sale Deed dated 31.08.1967 (Ex.P.1) was negated by all the
Courts below, thereafter the possession/alleged possession of
the plaintiffs could not have been protected by passing a decree
of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Under the
circumstances, the High Court has materially erred in dismissing
the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the
First Appellate Court. [Para 5][567-H; 568-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7129
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 02.03.2022 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999.
Arjun Garg, Shobhit Jain, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG, Sunny Choudhary, Manoj
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat
at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999, the original defendant has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That the respondent No.1 herein – original plaintiff filed a suit
seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction against the
defendant with regard to the suit property. The original plaintiffs claimed
KESAR BAI v. GENDA LAL & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
the title/ownership on the basis of the registered Sale Deed executed on
31.08.1967 in favour of their father and husband Dariyab Singh. The
plaintiffs also claimed the title on the basis of the adverse possession.
The learned Trial Court dismissed the sui

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