Supreme Court Upholds Possession Rights: Shivshankara & Anr. vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the possession rights of H.P. Vedavyasa Char in a long-standing property dispute against Shivshankara & Anr.. The case, Shivshankara & Anr. vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, revolved around claims of illegal dispossession, amendments to pleadings at the appellate stage, and the doctrine of possessory title.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated in a suit filed by H.P. Vedavyasa Char (plaintiff) in O.S. No.6456 of 1993 before the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The suit sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants—Shivshankara & Anr.—from interfering with his possession of the suit property and alienating it to third parties.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint to seek mandatory injunction for possession of specific portions of the property, described as ‘B’ Schedule and ‘C’ Schedule, along with an inquiry into mesne profits.

Trial Court Decision

The Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff on July 4, 2007, holding that:

The plaintiff had established prior possession of the suit property.
The defendants were liable to vacate the ‘B’ Schedule property and restore possession to the plaintiff.
The defendants were perpetually restrained from interfering with the ‘C’ Schedule portion of the property.

The defendants appealed the decision before the Karnataka High Court in RFA No.1966 of 2007.

High Court Decision

The defendants sought permission to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, arguing they had been denied the opportunity to present their case fully before the Trial Court. The High Court initially allowed their application on October 29, 2007 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The plaintiff challenged this remand order before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5201 of 2009. The Supreme Court held that the suit was not one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and directed the High Court to dispose of the appeal afresh, considering additional evidence recorded by the Trial Court.

Upon reconsideration, the Karnataka High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment on September 9, 2010, dismissing the defendants’ appeal and confirming the decree of possession and injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

Petitioners’ Arguments (Shivshankara & Anr.)

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Kiran Suri, contended:

The plaintiff failed to establish possession over ‘B’ Schedule property.
The suit should have been declared abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party.
The suit property had been purchased from a third party, Sriman Madhwa Sangha, through a registered sale deed dated October 5, 2000.
The High Court erred in dismissing their applications to amend the written statement and introduce additional grounds in appeal.

Respondent’s Arguments (H.P. Vedavyasa Char)

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, argued:

The suit was based on possessory title, and illegal dispossession justified the claim for restoration of possession.
The defendants failed to contest the amendment of the plaint during trial and did not lead any evidence to counter the plaintiff’s claim.
The defendants’ attempt to introduce new claims and documents at the appellate stage was a delay tactic.
The principle of ‘jus tertii’ (third-party rights) did not apply, as the defendants had never pleaded ownership of the suit property in their original written statement.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

“Where a party is in settled possession and is illegally dispossessed, the law entitles them to seek recovery of possession. The appellants failed to establish any superior right of possession.”

The Court reasoned:

The suit was maintainable, as prior possession and illegal dispossession were sufficiently proven.
The defendants failed to establish a better claim to possession.
The attempt to amend pleadings at the appellate stage was unjustified, as the defendants had multiple opportunities to do so during trial.
The suit was not abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives, as the remaining defendants adequately represented the estate of the deceased.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

For Property Disputes:

Possessory title is sufficient to seek recovery of possession if illegal dispossession is proven.
Defendants cannot introduce new ownership claims at the appellate stage if they failed to do so during trial.

For Judicial Procedures:

Amendments to pleadings at the appellate stage require strong justification and are generally not entertained after an adverse decree.
The doctrine of ‘jus tertii’ cannot be used as a defense when the party does not claim ownership.

For Legal Practitioners:

Defendants must assert ownership and possession claims at the trial stage; failing to do so may bar them from raising such claims in appeal.
The rejection of additional pleadings at the appellate stage underscores the importance of timely assertions in legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivshankara & Anr. vs. H.P. Vedavyasa Char reinforces the importance of prior possession in property disputes. The judgment prevents belated claims of ownership and protects parties from wrongful dispossession. The ruling serves as a crucial precedent in property litigation, emphasizing procedural discipline and the need for claimants to present their full case at the trial stage.

Petitioner Name: Shivshankara & Anr..
Respondent Name: H.P. Vedavyasa Char.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Bangalore.
Judgment Date: 28-03-2023.

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

Download Judgment: shivshankara-&-anr.-vs-h.p.-vedavyasa-char-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-03-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 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