Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 28-11-2019 in case of petitioner name Jit Ram (Deceased) through LRs vs Satnam Singh
| |

Jit Ram vs. Satnam Singh: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling on Adverse Possession

The case of Jit Ram (Deceased) through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh revolves around a dispute concerning land ownership and adverse possession. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court was justified in overturning the lower court’s ruling that the respondent had no claim of adverse possession over the disputed property.

This ruling is significant in defining the principles of adverse possession, the distinction between permissive possession and hostile possession, and the jurisdiction of appellate courts in land disputes.

Background of the Case

The dispute pertained to a portion of land in Punjab, originally owned by Banta, the father of Jit Ram and Sibo. Banta passed away on July 2, 1992. The legal dispute began when Sibo claimed ownership of part of the land based on a will allegedly executed by Banta in her favor.

Initial Civil Suit by Sibo

  • Sibo, though married, resided with her father and claimed that he had bequeathed 5 kanals out of 9 kanals 14 marlas of land to her through a will dated June 26, 1992.
  • She filed Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993 seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction to restrain Jit Ram from interfering with her possession.
  • The trial court ruled against her, stating that the will was suspicious and unproven, and dismissed her case on April 28, 1998.
  • No further appeal was filed by Sibo, making the decision final.

Entry of Satnam Singh in the Dispute

  • After Sibo’s case was dismissed, Satnam Singh, a relative of both Sibo and Jit Ram, claimed possession of a portion of the disputed land.
  • He asserted that he had constructed a structure (marked ABCD) on the land with Banta’s consent.
  • When Jit Ram filed Civil Suit No. 293 of 2003 seeking possession of the structure, Satnam Singh defended his claim by presenting a will from Sibo in his favor and also raised a plea of adverse possession.

Legal Proceedings

Trial Court’s Decision

  • The Trial Court ruled in favor of Satnam Singh, holding that he had perfected his title through adverse possession.
  • It dismissed Jit Ram’s claim, stating that the suit was barred by limitation.

First Appeal: District Court’s Reversal

  • Jit Ram challenged the decision in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2011 before the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur.
  • The appellate court ruled in favor of Jit Ram, stating:
    • Sibo’s claim had already been dismissed, so she could not pass any legal title to Satnam Singh through a will.
    • Satnam Singh’s possession was purely permissive, and there was no evidence of hostility against Jit Ram’s ownership.
    • The claim of adverse possession was untenable.

High Court’s Decision: Reinstating Adverse Possession

  • Satnam Singh appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court through Regular Second Appeal No. 3809 of 2013.
  • The High Court upheld that Sibo’s will was invalid but reversed the lower appellate court’s finding on adverse possession, ruling in favor of Satnam Singh.
  • The High Court reasoned that he had been in open and hostile possession of the structure since 1989.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Arguments by Jit Ram’s Legal Representatives

  • The High Court wrongly accepted Satnam Singh’s claim of adverse possession.
  • The possession of Satnam Singh was never hostile but purely permissive.
  • The trial court’s finding that Satnam Singh had perfected his title was legally unsound.

Arguments by Satnam Singh

  • He had continuously occupied the structure on the land since 1989.
  • His possession was open and hostile to the owner’s rights.
  • The claim of permissive possession was not proven by Jit Ram.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the appellate court’s decision in favor of Jit Ram’s legal representatives.

1. No Evidence of Hostility in Possession

  • The Court emphasized that for adverse possession, the occupant must demonstrate hostile intent against the rightful owner.
  • Satnam Singh’s possession was permissive, meaning he occupied the property with the owner’s consent, which negated any claim of adverse possession.

2. High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction

  • The Supreme Court found that the High Court had wrongly interfered in a second appeal with factual findings that were correctly established by the lower appellate court.
  • The Court ruled:

    “The High Court clearly erred in accepting the Second Appeal. There was no occasion to interfere with the appellate court’s findings.”

3. Compensation for Structure Built by Satnam Singh

  • The Court acknowledged that Satnam Singh had erected a structure on the disputed land.
  • Though the structure was in a dilapidated condition, the Court awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation to Satnam Singh.
  • The payment was conditional—he would receive it only if he vacated and handed over possession within two weeks.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for land disputes and adverse possession claims:

  • Clarifies the Law on Adverse Possession: Establishes that mere long-term possession does not grant ownership unless it is hostile.
  • Limits High Court’s Role in Second Appeals: Reaffirms that second appellate courts should not interfere with well-reasoned factual findings.
  • Protects Property Owners: Ensures that permissive possession does not unfairly evolve into ownership.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the principle that adverse possession cannot be claimed when possession is permissive. The judgment also limits judicial overreach in land disputes and ensures rightful owners are not deprived of their property due to misinterpretation of legal principles. By awarding compensation for the built structure, the Court also balanced the equities of the case.


Petitioner Name: Jit Ram (Deceased) through LRs..
Respondent Name: Satnam Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 28-11-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Jit Ram (Deceased) t vs Satnam Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts