RAME GOWDA (D) BY LRS. versus M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 15-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAME GOWDA (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
M. VARADAPPA NAIDU (D) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 15, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Juriprudence: 
Possession Held-In the absence of proof of better title, possession 
C or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title-&ttled 
possession or effective possession would protect a person without title even 
as against the true owner-High Court's order upheld. 
The plaintiff-respondent was in possession of a piece of land and 
was raising a construction over it which was objected to by, ~be 
D defendant-appellant claiming that the said land formed part -;;.~is' 
property and was owned by him. 
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration of.his titl~, as 
also his possession, of the disputed land. The trial. court foun~ that 
·E' 
E although the respondent failed to prove his title, he had succee~ed in 
proving his possession overthe suit property. Accordingly, it issued an 
injunction restraining the appellant from interfering \Vith the peaceful 
possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent. The 
: . 
' 
. 
. 
F 
G 
High Court upheld this order. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the suit ought 
not to have been decreed merely on the fattttiat the respondent was 
in possession of the suit property. since he could not prove his title. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. · 
HE.LO : 1. Tbe person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain 
his possession and in order to protect such possession he may e".en.use 
reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has 
been wrongful dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do 
H so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the 
850 
RAME GOWDA v. M.V. NAIDO 
851 
tresi;iasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the A 
rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; 
he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or 
interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person 
in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner. 
from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by B 
restoring him in possession even from the i-;ghtful owner (of course 
subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior 
possession by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, 
possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. 
Law presumes the possession to go with title unless rebutted. The C 
owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a 
trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being 
committed, or is ofa flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray 
or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful 
owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last 
of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would D 
not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner. (856-A-E) 
_ 
Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy, 
-_-. (1924) PC 144, Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 
-.. sec 350, Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 203, E 
Nair Service ·society Ltd. v. KC. Alexander, (1968) 3 SCR 1, MC. 
_ -Chokalingam v. V. Manickavasagam, [1974) 1 SCC 48, Krishna Ram 
--_ Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131 and Nagar Palika, 
Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426, relied on. 
Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das, AIR (1959) All. 1, approved. 
Salmond on Jurisprudence : 12th Edn., referred to.· 
F 
2. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person 
without title, which would entitle him to protect his possession even as G 
against the t_rue owner. (856-E-FJ 
Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran 
Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan v. State 
of U.P., ll9771 l sec 188, relied on. 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Haram v. Rex, AIR (1949) All. 564, approved. 
3.1. In the present case the Court has found the plaintiff-respondent 
as having failed in,proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to 
be in settle~ possession of the property. Even the defendant-appellant 
B · failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his 
entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Cour

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