Property Dispute and Possession: Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal in Land Case

The case of Kalyan Singh vs. Ravinder Kaur (D) Thr. LRS. revolves around a dispute regarding property possession and the validity of sale deeds. The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision, which reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the trial court’s decree in favor of the respondent. The core issue was the rightful possession of land by the plaintiff after the sale of 852-1/3 square yards, and the impact of the Local Commissioner’s report on the appeal.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Ravinder Kaur (respondent) purchased land admeasuring 852-1/3 square yards through a sale deed dated September 6, 1978. After the purchase, the respondent alleged that the appellant (Kalyan Singh) forcibly took possession of the land. The suit was filed for declaration and possession, claiming that the appellant had encroached on the purchased property. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, but the appellant contested the decision in the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court found that the Local Commissioner’s report indicated the respondent was in possession of 955 square yards, rather than the 852-1/3 square yards as stated in the sale deed. This discrepancy led to the dismissal of the respondent’s suit, as the report raised doubts about the precise boundaries of the property in question. The High Court later reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant)

• The appellant contended that the trial court’s judgment should be upheld as it was based on the Local Commissioner’s report, which noted that the respondent was in possession of more land than stated in the sale deed.
• He argued that the discrepancy between the amount of land purchased and the land in possession was significant and should not be ignored.
• The appellant further pointed out that the evidence provided by the respondent’s vendor and witnesses did not substantiate the claim of forcible possession by the appellant.
• The First Appellate Court’s findings regarding the Local Commissioner’s report should have been upheld, as it was a valid piece of evidence that raised doubts about the respondent’s claims.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the Local Commissioner’s report was inaccurate, and the land in possession was indeed the 852-1/3 square yards mentioned in the sale deed.
• The respondent further argued that there was no evidence that the appellant had forcibly taken possession of the land. The claim of encroachment was based on the appellant’s own actions of attempting to wrongfully seize land.
• The respondent relied on oral testimonies, including those from the vendor, to assert the proper transfer of possession at the time of the sale.
• The First Appellate Court’s dismissal of the respondent’s suit was incorrect, as the Local Commissioner’s report did not conclusively prove any wrongful encroachment by the appellant.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and considered the legal issues in dispute. The Court made the following key observations:

• On the Local Commissioner’s Report: The Court noted that the Local Commissioner’s report was inconclusive, especially regarding the discrepancy between the 852-1/3 square yards and the 955 square yards of land in possession. The Court held that the report should not have been the sole basis for dismissing the suit.
• On the question of possession: The Court found that the respondent had established a prima facie case for possession of the land covered by the sale deed, and the appellant had failed to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
• On the applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act: The Court found that the appellant’s plea of encroachment was not substantiated by clear evidence, and the suit for possession was therefore maintainable.
• On the First Appellate Court’s decision: The Court held that the First Appellate Court had wrongly relied on the Local Commissioner’s report, which did not conclusively prove the respondent’s possession of the land beyond the purchased area.

Key Judgment Excerpts

The Supreme Court ruled:

“In this case, the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit based on the report of the Local Commissioner. The respondent’s possession of the property described in the sale deed is evident, and no substantial evidence was presented to prove that the appellant had encroached upon the land.”

Regarding the encroachment claim, the Court observed:

“There is insufficient evidence to support the appellant’s claim of encroachment. Mere possession of a larger area of land than what was purchased does not automatically imply forcible possession by the defendant.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent.
• The Court found that the Local Commissioner’s report could not be relied upon as conclusive evidence, and the respondent’s claim for possession was not substantiated.
• The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court reversing the First Appellate Court’s decision was set aside.

Conclusion

This case highlights the significance of reliable evidence in property disputes. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that a Local Commissioner’s report, while useful, cannot serve as the sole basis for judicial decisions when the possession of land is disputed. The judgment underscores the need for clear and consistent evidence to support claims of wrongful encroachment, and the Court’s final ruling emphasizes the importance of ensuring fairness in property litigation.

Petitioner Name: Kalyan Singh.
Respondent Name: Ravinder Kaur (D) Thr. LRS..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Punjab and Haryana.
Judgment Date: 11-09-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Kalyan Singh vs Ravinder Kaur (D) Th Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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