Supreme Court Restores Possession Rights of Charitable Trust in Land Dispute

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in a land dispute case involving Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust and the legal heirs of Diwan Chand. The case revolved around the ownership and possession of a piece of land forming part of Khasra No. 4833, which the trust claimed had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower appellate court and the High Court, restoring the trial court’s judgment in favor of the trust.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the trust, a registered charitable institution, filed a suit in 1982 seeking possession of land allegedly encroached upon by the defendants. The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the plaintiffs did not own the land, had no locus standi to file the suit, and that they had been in uninterrupted possession for over 34 years. They further contended that the land in question was not part of Khasra No. 4833 and claimed ownership by way of adverse possession.

The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, ruled in favor of the trust, ordering the eviction of the respondents. However, this decision was overturned by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) on appeal, who held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish ownership. The High Court subsequently upheld the ADJ’s ruling. The trust then approached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case and found errors in the lower courts’ findings.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust)

The trial court had rightly decreed the suit based on strong evidence proving ownership of Khasra No. 4833.
The respondents had previously admitted in court that the disputed land was part of Khasra No. 4833.
The respondents had filed an application before the Tehsildar in 1993, explicitly stating that the land they occupied was part of Khasra No. 4833.
The Local Commissioner’s report from 1975, submitted during execution proceedings in a previous case, confirmed that the land in question fell within Khasra No. 4833.
The claim of adverse possession made by the respondents presupposed the trust’s ownership of the land.

Respondent’s Arguments (Legal Heirs of Diwan Chand)

The appellate courts had correctly found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership.
The Local Commissioner’s report from 1978 indicated that the disputed land was located 434 feet beyond Khasra No. 4833.
The respondents had been in possession of the land for over three decades and could not be evicted without due process.
The findings of fact by the lower courts should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The High Court had itself acknowledged that Khasra No. 4833 belonged to the appellants, but denied relief based on a supposed dispute over the identity of the land.
The respondents had, on multiple occasions, admitted that the land they occupied was part of Khasra No. 4833.
The Local Commissioner’s 1978 report was unreliable as it failed to ascertain pucca points and did not mention Khasra numbers.
The 1975 Local Commissioner’s report, which correctly identified the disputed land as part of Khasra No. 4833, was more credible.
The respondents’ plea of adverse possession inherently recognized the appellants’ ownership of the property.

Key Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court held that the respondents’ claim of adverse possession was legally untenable as they had already lost on this ground in previous litigation.
The respondents’ own declarations before the Tehsildar and in municipal applications confirmed that the land was part of Khasra No. 4833.
The High Court erred in dismissing the suit based on an alleged identity dispute when the evidence overwhelmingly established the appellants’ claim.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants:

The orders of the High Court and the lower appellate court were set aside.
The trial court’s judgment ordering the eviction of the respondents was restored.
The court directed that a decree for possession be prepared and executed in favor of the trust.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for property disputes involving adverse possession claims:

Clear Ownership Rights: The judgment reinforces the principle that a party claiming adverse possession must meet stringent legal requirements.
Reliability of Evidence: Courts must carefully assess documentary evidence and prior admissions before dismissing a claim.
Due Process for Eviction: The ruling highlights that long-term possession does not automatically confer ownership rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Murti Shri Durga Bhawani Trust v. Diwan Chand (Dead) through LRs upholds the fundamental principle that ownership cannot be defeated by mere long possession when the title is established. The judgment ensures that property owners are not deprived of their rights due to erroneous findings in lower courts. By restoring possession to the trust, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of relying on credible evidence while adjudicating property disputes.

Petitioner Name: Murti Shri Durga Bhawani (Hetuwali) Trust & Anr..
Respondent Name: Sh. Diwan Chand (Dead) through LRs & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Karnal, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 11-04-2023.

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

Download Judgment: murti-shri-durga-bha-vs-sh.-diwan-chand-(dea-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-04-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download 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 Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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