Adverse Possession Claim Rejected: Supreme Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a significant case concerning adverse possession, wherein the appellants, Brijesh Kumar and another, contested the High Court’s ruling that favored the respondent’s claim of adverse possession. The case also involved Raman Lal and others as appellants against Bhagirath and others.

The dispute revolved around four out of six Biswas of land in Survey No. 493, Village Purani Chhabani, Guna. The original landowners, Mool Chand and Kashi Ram, had sold the land to Urmila Devi in 1972, who later sold portions of it to the appellants in 1989. However, the plaintiff, Matadin, claimed adverse possession, citing land records from 1960-1961.

Arguments by the Appellants

Senior counsel Shri Manoj Prasad argued that the findings of the First Appellate Court, which ruled against the claim of adverse possession, should have been final. He contended that the High Court had no justification to overturn those findings without proving any perversity. The plaintiff’s claim was based on questionable Khasra entries and lacked proper documentation to establish uninterrupted possession for twelve years.

The counsel highlighted that the plaintiff’s amendments to his claim were an afterthought. Furthermore, he pointed out that Hemraj and Hitesh Kumar, relatives of the plaintiff, were suspended from their positions as clerks in the collectorate for allegedly tampering with land records. The defense also presented the findings of the court commissioner, which confirmed possession had lawfully changed hands.

Arguments by the Respondents

On the other hand, Shri Puneet Jain, appearing for the respondents, argued that adverse possession was initially pleaded and not introduced later. He referred to Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, asserting that the correctness of the Khasra entries presumes the legitimacy of possession. He contended that the original landowners never contested these entries, further strengthening the plaintiff’s claim.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee concluded that the High Court’s decision to overturn the First Appellate Court’s ruling was erroneous. The Supreme Court noted that adverse possession requires the claimant to establish peaceful, open, and continuous possession against the titleholder. The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim lacked credibility, as the Khasra entries supporting his possession were deemed tampered with.

The ruling reinforced the principle that a claim of adverse possession must be substantiated with clear, uninterrupted, and legally recognized occupation. Since the plaintiff failed to meet these criteria, the Supreme Court restored the First Appellate Court’s decision and dismissed the suit.

The case sets a crucial precedent in property disputes, particularly regarding claims of adverse possession, emphasizing the necessity of documented, unchallenged possession over a statutory period.

Petitioner Name: Brijesh Kumar and another, Raman Lal and others.
Respondent Name: Shardabai (deceased) through LRS and others, Bhagirath (deceased) through LRS and others.
Judgment By: Justice Navin Sinha, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Village Purani Chhabani, Guna.
Judgment Date: 01-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Brijesh Kumar and an vs Shardabai (deceased) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-10-2019.pdf