NEELAM GUPTA & ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 14-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 708 : 2024 INSC 769
Neelam Gupta & Ors. 
v. 
Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3159-3160 of 2019)
14 October 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to whether the impugned judgment is to be sustained 
in view of the indisputable or undisputed facts; whether the suit 
schedule property is the Joint Hindu Family property; whether 
the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the 
suit schedule property is the correct conclusion on assimilation of 
facts and appreciation of evidence; and whether the High Court 
was right in declining to accept the appellants’ contention that 
they perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession.
Headnotes†
Adverse possession – Title to the property – Suit for recovery 
of possession of the property by respondent no.1-plaintiff 
against the appellants-original defendants asserting that he 
purchased the suit property as per registered sale deed in 1968 
from a common cousin of himself and the original defendants; 
and that since its registration he had been enjoying peaceful 
possession of the suit property under Bhumiswami Rights 
till he was dispossessed by the defendants in 1983 – Case of 
original defendants that their father and father of the plaintiff, 
purchased the suit property in the name of their nephew 
(common cousin) in 1963; that upon the death of plaintiff’s 
father in 1967, the suit property was transferred in the name 
of the plaintiff, albeit claimed that its possession still remained 
with them; that in 1976 oral partition took place between their 
father-original defendant No.1 and plaintiff’s family whereunder 
the suit property allotted to the share of defendant’s family; 
that the property was part of Joint Hindu Family; and pleaded 
adverse possession and limitation, on the ground of being 
in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
709
Neelam Gupta & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
12 years – Trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate 
court upheld the same – However, the High Court decreed in 
favour of the respondent no.1-plaintiff – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Once the plaintiff proves his title over suit 
property it is for the defendant resisting the same claiming adverse 
possession that he perfected title through adverse possession and in 
terms of Art. 65 of the 1963 Act the starting point of limitation would 
not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to 
the plaintiff but would commence only from the date the defendant’s 
becomes adverse – Evidence on the part of the defendants reveal 
that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour 
of title they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive 
possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from 
which it was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff which 
is open and continuous for the prescriptive period  – Requirements 
to co-exist to constitute adverse possession not established by the 
defendants – Reckoning of the period of limitation from the date of 
commencement of the right of ownership of the plaintiff over the 
suit land instead of looking into whether they had succeeded in 
pleading and establishing the date of commencement of adverse 
possession and satisfaction regarding the prescriptive period in 
that regard, rightly interfered with, by the High Court – High Court 
rightly held that the defendants had only permissive possession 
over the scheduled land and it was not adverse possession 
against the respondent – Suit property is not a Joint Hindu Family 
Property – High Court rightly held that the plaintiff is the owner 
of the suit property and that the plaintiff had acquired ownership 
over the property on the strength of sale deed – Plea as regards 
benami transaction also rejected – Furthermore, immovable 
property can be transferred in favour of a minor or a minor can be 
a transferee though not a transferor of immovable property – Thus, 
the cousin had no legal disability or disqualification at the time of 
purchase of suit land in 1963 in his name as also the plaintiff, as 
a transferee, at the time of execution of sale deed – No reason 
to ascribe voidness to the sale deeds or to hold that they did not 
have the effect of transfer of ownership – Alleged contempt that 
pending the instant appeal and after the passing of the order o

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