STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HARPHOOL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 04-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
• 
v. 
,.._ 
HARPHOOL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH ms LRS. 
MAY4, 2000 
B 
[S. RAJENDRABABU AND DORAISWAMYRAJU, JJ.] 
I 
Adverse possession-Proof of-Plaintiff claiming adverse possession on 
y 
a l~nd belonging to State Govemment-MeTT! vague assertions-No concrete 
4--
or mate._ rial proof to substantiate the claim-Allowed by Trial Court-Affirmed 
c 
by fi,.st appellate court and High Court-Validity of-Held, in order to 
substantiate a claim of adverse possession, the ingTT!dients of open, hostile and 
continues possession for a period of 30 years should be proved-In the instant 
case, materials on record do not substantiate plaintiffs claim for adverse 
possession-Thus, Courts below were not justified in allowing the claim-
D 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section II 0. 
Public property-Adverse possession-Claim-Consideration of-Held, 
requires moTT! senous and effective consideration since it involves destruction 
of_rightltitle of State property. 
E 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 9-Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 
19~tfions 22, 24 and 25-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a suit-
~ 
Public property-Adverse possession-Claim-Determination of-Held, deter-
mination of a claim of acquisition of State property by adverse possession is 
outside the purview of Section 22 which is concerned only with summary 
eviction of unauthori~ed occupants-Powers and proceduTT! under Section 22 
F 
is no substitute for Civil Courts jurisdiction to try and adjudicate disputes 
relating to title to immovable property. 
.. 
Code of Civil ProceduTT!, 1908-Sections 96and1 DO-Appellate Courts-
Power to inteifere-Perv/rse findings not based upon legally acceptable evi-
G 
dence-Patently contrary to law declared by Supreme Court-Held, Courts 
have no immunity from inteifeTT!nce. 
Respondent-plaintiff laid his claim to a plot of land belonging to 
~· 
State Government. According to the plaintiff he was in possession of the 
said-land since time immemorial and in the year 1955 he had constructed a 
H 
house on the said land and started living there. However, the A.D.M. 
958 
STATE v. HARPHOOL SINGH 
959 
ordered his eviction under Ss. 22 and 24 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 
1954. Aggrieved, plaintiff filed a suit for title by adverse possession. 
During trial at the time of evidence for the first time 3 claim regarding 
possession of the property by the father of the plaintiff was introduced and 
two witnesses in support of said claim were examined. Trial Court, allowed 
the claim of adverse possession by holding that the land in dispute had 
been in peaceful and continuous possession of the plaintiff since 1955. On 
appeal, the first appellate court while affirming the findings of trial Court 
regarding adverse possession, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limi-
tation. The second appeal filed by appellant-State was also dismissed by 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-State :'it was contended that the courts 
below committed serious error of law in upholding the claim of adverse 
possession of plaintiff when the essential ingredients necessary to substan-
tiate the claim of perfection of title were totally lacking; that there was no 
specific finding about the claim of possessjon by the father projected 
merely at the time of trial, not raised either when objections were submit-
ted before the A.D.M. or even when the suit was filed in the plaint; that the 
order passed by the A.D.M. in exercise of his power under Section 22 of the 
Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 has become final and thejurisdiction of 
the Civil Court stated ousted in respect of such matters by virtue of Section 
25 of the said Act and therefore the suit could not have been entertained at 
all by the Civil Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD : 1.1. The materials on record do not substantiate respondent-
plaintiff's claim for perfection of title by adverse possession to the public 
F 
property. Thus, Trial Court was not justified in holding that the adverse 
possession of plaintiff has been established. Both the first appellate court 
and the High Court erred in mechanically affirming the findings of the 
Trial Court without application of mind. The judgment and decree of the 
courts below are set aside. (968-H; 969-A-B] 
G 
1.2. In order to substantiate a claim of adverse possession the ingredi-
ents of open, hostile and continuous possession for a period of 30 years should 
be proved. In the inst

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