Adverse Possession Rejected: Legal Ownership Restored in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narendra & Ors. vs. Ajabrao s/o Narayan Katare (D) Through LRs, addressed a critical dispute concerning property ownership and the principle of adverse possession. The judgment, delivered on October 26, 2017, clarified the legal standards required to establish adverse possession.

The appellants, who purchased a property through a registered sale deed, sought possession of a portion occupied by the respondent, who claimed ownership through adverse possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, dismissing the appellants’ claim. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision and upheld the appellants’ ownership rights. The High Court, on second appeal, reinstated the trial court’s judgment, siding with the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners (appellants) contended that:

• They legally purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1985 and, therefore, had the rightful ownership.
• The respondent was initially in permissive possession, and upon withdrawal of permission, he was obligated to vacate.
• The High Court erred in reversing the first appellate court’s ruling without identifying any substantial question of law.
• The plea of adverse possession was never properly established by the respondent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent (defendant) argued that:

• He had been in possession of the disputed portion for over 40 years, much before the appellants purchased the property.
• The property was never sold but only mortgaged to the appellants’ predecessor-in-title.
• His long-standing possession was adverse to the appellants’ title and thus should be recognized as ownership.
• The suit was defective due to the non-joinder of necessary parties.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning the High Court’s decision. The bench observed:

“The High Court decided the second appeal like a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code inasmuch as the High Court went on appreciating the entire oral evidence and reversed the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court on the question of adverse possession. Such approach of the High Court, in our opinion, was not permissible in law.”

The Court further noted:

• A plea of adverse possession must be explicitly pleaded and proven with specific details.
• Possession, however long, does not automatically translate into adverse possession.
• The respondent failed to show when and how his possession became adverse to the true owner.
• The burden of proof was on the respondent to establish adverse possession, which he failed to do.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court reinstated the first appellate court’s judgment, stating:

“There is no assertion on the part of the original defendant to claim ownership over the suit property to the exclusion of the whole world including its true owners. Second, it is not pleaded as to when and in what manner such assertion began. In other words, it is not pleaded as to from which date so as to enable the Courts to count the period of 12 years or 40 years, as claimed by the defendant.”

The Court emphasized that mere possession does not equate to ownership. It ruled that the respondent’s occupation was permissive and became unauthorized once the appellants revoked permission.

Conclusion

This case serves as a significant precedent in property law, reiterating that claims of adverse possession must be proven with precision. The judgment highlights the importance of properly structuring second appeals and ensures that courts adhere to legal principles while deciding ownership disputes.

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

Download Judgment: Narendra & Ors. vs Ajabrao so Narayan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-10-2017.pdf