SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. versus NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 15-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 1
1
SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
NATHU RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 190 of  2020)
JANUARY 15, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Adverse Possession:
Suit for possession – Asserting their title by purchase of
property through Managing Officer – Alleging defendants being
in unauthorised possession – Trial Court admitted the title but
dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and recognising the
right of defendants by adverse possession – Appellate Court
decreed the suit – In second appeal, High Court on the ground of
adverse possession by defendants dismissed the suit – Appeal to
Supreme Court – Held: Plea of adverse possession is always
founded on acceptance of ownership of property in another
person – In the instant case, defendants never accepted the
ownership either of the plaintiff or the Managing Director – Hence,
cannot be said to have perfected their right by adverse possession.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the
acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another,
against whom the claimant asserts possession adverse to the
title of the other. The defendants have not admitted the vesting
of the suit property with the Managing Officer and the factum
of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have
denied the title not only of the Managing Officer but also of the
plaintiff. The plea of the defendants is one of continuous
possession but there is no plea that such possession was hostile
to the true owner of the suit property. The evidence of the
defendants is that of continuous possession. Some of the receipts
pertain to 1963 but possession since November, 1963 till the
filing of the suit will not ripe into title as the defendants never
admitted the plaintiff-appellant to be owner or that the land ever
vested with the Managing Officer. Therefore, the findings
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
recorded by the High Court that the defendants have perfected
their title by adverse possession are not legally sustainable.
Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the High
Court is set aside and the suit is decreed. [Paras 15 and 16] [10-
B-C; 13-B-E]
M Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and
Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1440 – followed.
T. Anjanappa and Ors. v. Somalingappa and Anr.
(2006) 7 SCC 570 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 200 ;
Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla
Jani  Kamma alias Nacharamma (2008)  15  SCC 150:
[2008] 11 SCR 849 ; Brijesh Kumar and Anr. v.
Shardabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors.
(2019) 9 SCC 369 ; Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors.
v. Manjit Kaur and Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729 –
relied on.
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India &
Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 779 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 255 ;
Dagadabai (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Abbas
alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari (2017) 13 SCC 705  –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 200
relied on
Para 8
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 255
referred to
Para 9
[2008] 11 SCR 849
relied on
Para 9
(2017) 13 SCC 705
referred to
Para 9
(2019) 9 SCC 369
relied on
Para 13
(2019) 8 SCC 729
relied on
Para 14
(2019) SCC OnLine SC 1440
followed
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 190
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2011 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.S.A. No. 225 of 2003.
Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, R. Vijaynandan Reddy, Advs. for the
Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Gagan Gupta, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against
judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi on 18th
February, 2011 whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed
and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was
dismissed.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase
of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of
Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st
March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4th
January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17th February,
1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the
suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
3. The defendants in the written statement denied that the plaintiff
is the owner of the property.  The defendants asserted that their
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.