POONA RAM versus MOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 671 · Decided: 29-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
671
POONA RAM
v.
MOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4527 of 2009)
JANUARY 29, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Suit:
Suit claiming possessory title – Based on settled possession
for a number of years – Alleging that he was wrongfully dispossessed
by defendants – No document to prove his possession – Defendants
relied on two sale deeds (one executed by original owner to the
predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 and another by
predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.1 to defendant No.1) – Trial
court decreed the suit – First appellate court dismissed the suit on
the ground that the defendants had proved their title and possession
over the suit property – High Court, in second appeal, reversing
order of first appellate court, decreed the suit – Review petition
also dismissed – On appeal, held: In order to prove possessory
title, settled/established possession is required to be proved – Settled
possession means possession which has existed for a sufficiently
long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner
– Settled possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the
knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by
the trespasser – The possession should contain an element of animus
possidendi – Occupation of the property as an agent or a servant at
the instance of owner will not amount to actual legal possession –
The nature of possession of trespasser is to be decided based on
the facts and circumstances of each case – A casual act of possession
or stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into
settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by true owner
even by using necessary force – In the present case, no material is
found to show that the plaintiff was in actual possession much less
continuous possession for a long period which could be called
settled possession – Defendant No.1 has proved his title and
possession since the date of his purchase of the property – High
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 671
671
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of facts recorded
by first appellate court – Suit stands dismissed – Possession.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The First Appellate Court being the final court
of fact, on due appreciation of the entire material on record, gave
a definite finding that the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing
the suit, and observed that predecessor-in-interest of the
defendants was in possession of the property in question even
prior to 1966, and had sold the same through registered sale
deed in June 1966 vide Ex. A-2. This sale deed shows the
measurement of the land, which corresponds to the plots in
question approximately. The judgment of the First Appellate Court
reveals that the Municipality had let out only three plots to the
Jagirdar (original owner), and those three plots together
measured 32 x 66 hands (unit of measurement). Thus, each plot
measured 32 x 22 hands.  These were numbered as Plot No. 4,
Plot No. 5 and Plot No. 7. The disputed site is Plot No. 7. It is
also relevant that sanction for constructing the house was given
to predecessor-in-interest of defendants in the year 1957.
Obviously, such sanction would have been accorded only on the
basis of title and possession of the property. The official record
(survey map), Ex.14, which relates to the plot in question, i.e.,
Plot No.7, reveals that it was owned by Defendant No.1.
[Paras 6, 7][676-G-H; 677-A-B]
2.  A person who asserts possessory title over a particular
property will have to show that he is under settled or established
possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent
acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner.
Settled possession means such possession over the property
which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has
been acquiesced to by the true owner.  A casual act of possession
does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the
rightful owner.   A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has
not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or
removed by the true owner even by using necessary force.
Settled possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii)
to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at
concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a straitjacket
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
673
formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a p

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