MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST & ANR versus SH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 11-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 366
366
MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST & ANR.
v.
SH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6801 of 2010)
APRIL 11, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Adverse possession – Ownership/title to property – Appellant,
owner of land forming part of khasra No. 4833 – Suit for possession
alleging that respondents had encroached the said land –
Respondent’s case that they are in possession for the last 34 years;
that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse
possession and the suit property is not part of Khasra No. 4833 –
Trial court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the appellants
and the respondents ejected from the suit property – However, the
lower appellate court set aside the order of the trial court on the
ground that the appellants failed to prove their title to the property
– High Court upheld the order of the lower appellate court – On
appeal, held: On facts, the respondent failed to establish ownership
by way of adverse possession – Title and ownership to the suit
property established in favour of the appellants – Admissions and
submissions by the respondent that property in dispute is part of
Khasra No. 4833 – Appellants have been admitted to be owner of
the property being Khasra No. 4833 – This finding has even been
recorded in the impugned order passed by the High Court as also
first appellate court – There is no challenge to the said finding by
the respondents – Appellants have been non-suited on the ground
that the respondents are not in possession of any part of khasra
No. 4833 as the property in their possession is different – However,
the findings recorded by the lower appellate court as well as the
High Court are perverse if considered in the light of the material
documents which are in the form of admission of respondents
themselves regarding the identity of the property in their possession
– As regards the plea of the respondents that they became owner of
the property by way of adverse possession, the respondent lost on
this ground in the earlier litigation – Still further the plea of the
respondents about adverse possession pre-supposes ownership of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
the specific property of the appellants, which is claimed to be in
possession of the respondents – Thus, order passed by the High
Court are set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6801
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2010 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RA No.25 of 2010 and RSA No.
2306 of 1997.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6802, 6803 and 6804 of 2010.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Rajinder Mathur, Ms. Tanuj Bagga
Sharma, Tarun Mathur, M K Ravi, Akshat Singhal, Siddharth Jain, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Satwik Parikh, Ms.
Sanjana Grace Thomas, Ms. Mantika Vohra, A. N. Arora, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The plaintiffs are before this Court impugning the orders passed
by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2306 & 2307 of
1997, which upheld the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate
Court, reversing that of the Trial Court in Suit Nos. 273 and 274 of 1989.
The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed. The orders dated
5.4.2010 passed in Review Application Nos. RA-RS-25C & 26-C of
2010 against the aforesaid appeals are also under challenge.
2. The case has a chequered history. However, the facts leading
to the present appeals are being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 6801/
2010. However, wherever required, the previous litigation pertaining to
the said property shall be referred to.
3. The appellant is a registered Charitable Trust, which is the
owner of the land forming part of Khasra No. 4833. A suit was filed by
the appellant on 26.5.1982 for possession. It was alleged that the land
was encroached upon by the respondents/defendants. The suit was
contested by the respondents/defendants raising objection that the
MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST v. SH.
DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
appellants/plaintiffs are not the owners of the property in dispute; they
have no locus to file the suit; the defendants are in possession of the
property for more than 34 years and running their business; and the suit
property is not part of Khasra No. 4833. It was also pleade

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