NARENDRA & ORS. versus AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 26-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 1 I S.CR. 746 
NARENDRA & ORS. 
v. 
AJABRAO SIO NARAYAN KATARE (D) THROUGH LRS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3533-3534 of2008) 
OCTOBER 26, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss.96, JOO - Appellants-
plaillliffe purchased a house - Original defendant (predecessor-
in-interest of the respondents) was living in two rooms of the said 
house even before its purchase by the appellants - Suit filed by 
appellants for declaration of their title over the entire house and 
· for possession of the portion of the house, which was occupied by 
the original defendant - Trial court dismissed the suit - First appeal 
by appellants was allowed - Second appeal by original defendant, 
allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court decided the 
second appeal like a first appeal u/s. 96 inasmuch as it went on 
appreciating the entire oral evidence and reversing the findings of 
fact of the first appellate court on the question of adverse 
possession - Such approach of High Court was not permissible in 
law - Impugned order is set aside - Judgment of the first appellate 
court, which rightly decreed the appellants' suit against the 
respondents is restored - Adverse Possession. 
Adverse Possession - Nature of the plea - Suit filed by 
appellants, inter alia for possession of the portion of the house 
occupied by the original defendant - Plea of adverse possession 
set up by original defendant claiming to have been in possession of 
the house much prior to its purchase by appellants - Held: Plea of 
adverse possession is a plea based on facts - High Court has the 
jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, to interfere in finding of fact 
provided such finding is found to be wholly perverse or when ii is 
G found to be against any settled principle of law or pleadings or 
evidence - Such errors constitute a question of law and empower 
the High Court to interfere - However, no such error is found in the 
i11sta11/ case more so when plea of adverse possession was neithei" 
proper~v pleaded nar made out. 
H 
746 
NARENDRA & ORS. v. AJABRAO S/O NARAYAN KATARE 
(D) THR. LRS. 
Adverse Possession - Law of - Held: Akre possession, 
howsoever long it may be, does 1101 necessarily mean that it is 
adverse 10 the true owner - In the instant case, the original 
defendant failed to discharge the burden to claim owne1~'hip over 
the suit property or its part,, to the exclusion of the whole world 
including its true owners, by any documentary evidence. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The approach of the High Court in deciding the 
second appeal which resulted in dismissal of appellants' suit was 
wholly perverse and against the well settled principle of law 
applicable to second appeals and to the factual controversy 
involved in the case for the following the reasons. In the first 
place, the High Court decided the second appeal like a first appeal 
under Section 96 of the Code inasmuch as the High Court went 
on appreciating the entire oral evidence and reversed the 11ndings 
747 
A 
B 
c 
of fact of the First Appellate Court on the question of adverse 
possession. Such approach of the High Court was not permissible 
D 
in law. Second, the High Court failed lo sec that a pica of adverse 
possession is essentially a pica based on facts. It was more so as 
it did not involve any question of law much less substantial 
· <1uestion of law. This aspect of law was also overlooked by the 
High Court. Third, the High Court has the jurisdiction, in 
appropriate cases, to interfere in 11nding of fact provided such 
11nding is found to be wholly perverse to the extent that no judicial 
11crson could ever record such 11nding or when it is found to be 
against any settled principle of law or pleadings or evidence. Such 
errors constitute a question of law and empower the High Court 
to interfere. However, no such error is found here. Fourth, the 
High Court failed to sec that the pica of adverse possession was 
neither properly pleaded and nor made out by the respondents. 
[Paras 16-20] [751-H; 752-A-F) 
E 
F 
2. Mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not 
necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the 
G 
classical requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession 
is that such possessions arc in denial of the true owners' title. 
[Para 23] [753-A-B] 
H 
748 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 l 7] 11 S.C.R. 
T. A1yanqppa & Ors. v. Somalingappa &

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