RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS versus MANJIT KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 07-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 19 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS.
v.
MANJIT KAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7764 of  2014)
AUGUST 07, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65 – Suit under, for declaration of
title – If can be filed by person claiming the title by virtue of adverse
possession – Two-Judge Bench Decision of Supreme Court in
Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala referring to the
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in one Gurudwara
Sahib Sannauli case,  opined that no declaration of title can be sought
by plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession inasmuch as adverse
possession can be used as shield by defendant and not as sword by
plaintiff – Held: Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahab case while
deciding the question simply observed that there is “no quarrel”
with the proposition to the extent that suit cannot be based by the
plaintiff on adverse possession – Thus, the point whether the plaintiff
can take the plea of adverse possession was not contested and none
of the decisions of larger and coordinate benches holding the
contrary views were placed before the two-Judge Bench– Further,
in the case of Gurdwara Sahib Sannauli also, there is no independent
consideration –Punjab & Haryana High Court proceeded on the
basis that as per Art.65, the plea of adverse possession is available
as defence to a defendant – Conclusion is based on an inferential
process because of the language used in the IIIrd Column of Article
65 – Column No.3 of Schedule of the Act nowhere suggests that suit
cannot be filed by the plaintiff for possession of immovable property
or any interest therein based on title acquired by way of adverse
possession – There is absolutely no bar for the perfection of title by
way of adverse possession whether a person is suing as the plaintiff
or being sued as a defendant – Inferential process of interpretation
employed by the High Court is not permissible– There is no bar u/
Art.65 or any of the provisions of the 1963 Act as against the plaintiff
who has perfected title by virtue of adverse possession to sue for
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1
74
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 74
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
75
eviction of a person or to protect his possession – Decisions of
Supreme Court in Gurudwara Sahab, in Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh
Maharaj relying on  Gurudwara Sahab and in Punjab Wakf Board
case cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly and thus
are overruled – Possession – Adverse Possession – Specific Relief
Act, 1963 – s.6.
Possession – Adverse Possession – Effect of adverse
possession as against limited owner  – Discussed.
Possession – Adverse Possession – Concept of – Held: Statute
does not define adverse possession – It is a common law concept,
the period of which has been prescribed statutorily as 12 years –
Law of limitation does not define adverse possession nor anywhere
contains a provision that the plaintiff cannot sue based on adverse
possession – Under Art.64 also suit can be filed based on the
possessory title – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.27 and Art.64.
Possession – Adverse Possession – Title acquired by – Nature
of – Discussed.
Limitation Act, 1963 – Operation of – Held: Operation of the
statute of limitation in giving a title is merely negative – It extinguishes
the right and title of the dispossessed owner and leaves the occupant
with a title gained by the fact of possession and resting on the
infirmity of the right of others to eject him.
Words & Expressions – “title”, “tacking”– Meaning of –
Discussed – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.65.
Words & Expressions – “ownership”, “possession” – Kinds
of – Discussed.
Possession – Adverse Possession – Proof of – Requirements
for – Held: Adverse possession requires all the three classic
requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec-vi i.e. adequate
in continuity, nec-clam i.e., adequate in publicity and nec-precario
i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge.
Possession – Adverse Possession – When not – Held:
Trespasser’s long possession is not synonym with adverse possession
– Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner,
the casual user does not constitute adverse possession – Maxims –
Animus possidendi.
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL v. MANJIT KAUR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
Directing the matters to be placed for consideration on
merits before the appropriate Bench, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In Halsbury’s Laws o

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