TRIBHUVANSHANKAR versus AMRUTLAL

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 13-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013) 12 S.C.R. 368 
TRIBHUVANSHANKAR 
v. 
AMRUTLAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 10316 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL 
ACT, 1961: 
Suit for eviction - Defendant denying title of plaintiff over 
suit premises and setting up plea of adverse possession -
Finding of trial court that there is no relationship of landlord 
and tenant between parties, not assailed - Held: Once a finding 
0 was recorded that there was no relationship of landlord and 
tenant under the Scheme of the Act, there was no necessity 
to enter into an enquiry with regard to the title of the plaintiff 
based on the sale deed or the title of the defendant as put 
forth by way of assertion of long possession - High Court is 
E justified to the extent that no equitable relief could be granted 
in a suit instituted under the Act - But, it has committed an 
illegality by affirming the judgment and decree passed by trial 
court because by such affirmation, defendant becomes owner 
of the premises by acquisition of title by prescription and, 
therefore, impugned judgment to that extent is vulnerable and 
F accordingly the said affirmation is set aside - Judgment of 
High Court is affirmed only to the extent that as relationship 
of landlord and tenant was not established, defendant was not 
liable for eviction under the Act - The issue of right, title and 
interest is open - In the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled 
G under law to file a fresh suit for title and recovery of 
possession and such other reliefs as the law permits and 
defendant is entitled to resist the same by putting forth all his 
stand and stance including the plea of adverse possession. 
H 
368 
TRIBHUVANSHANKAR v. AMRUTLAL 
369 
ADVERSE POSSESSION: 
Concept of adverse possession - Explained - Limitation 
- Time spent in adjudication of suit and appeals - Held: In the 
instant oase, the suit was instituted on the basis of purchase 
A 
-- The relief sought in the plaint was for delivery of possession B 
-- It was not a forum that lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass 
a decree for delivery of possession -- It showed the intention 
of plaintiff to act and to take back the possession -- In the 
circumstances, after institution of the suit, the time for 
acquiring title by adverse possession has been arrested or 
remained in a state of suspension till the entire proceedings C 
arising out of suit are terminated - Therefore, appel/ant-
plaintiff is permitted to institute a suit. 
The appellant instituted a suit under the M.P. 
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the D 
respondent from the suit-premises and for mesne profits. 
The case of the appellant-plaintiff was that he had 
purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed 
dated 1.4.1976 and the respondent-defendant was in 
possession of the said suit property as a tenant under E 
the vendor on a monthly rent of Rs.15/-. The defendant 
disputed the right, title and interest of the plaintiff, and 
denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He further 
set up a plea of adverse possession. The trial court 
dismissed the suit holding that the sale deed relied upon 
F 
by the plaintiff was without any sale consideration; that 
the relationship of landlord and tenant between the 
parties had not been established; and that the 
respondent had become the owner of the suit 
accommodation on the basis of adverse possession. The G 
first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and 
decreed the suit for possession holding that though the 
appellant-plaintiff had not been able to prove the 
relationship of landlord and tenant, the conclusion 
arrived at by the trial court that the sale-deed dated H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A 1.4.1976 due to absence of sale consideration was invalid, 
was neither justified nor correct; and that there being no 
clinching evidence to establish that the defendant had 
perfected his title by adverse possession, the finding 
recorded by the trial court on that score was indefensible. 
B The second appeal filed by the defendant-respondent 
was allowed by the High Court holding that once the 
plaintiff had failed to establish the relationship of landlord 
and tenant, the plaintiff could not have fallen back on his 
title to seek eviction of the tenant. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The finding returned by the courts below 
that has been concurred by the High Court to the effect 
tha

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