The bench comprising of Justice L.Nageswara Rao & Justice Hemant Gupta passed a judgement in case titled as Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs v. Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Ors.
Facts of the case were that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property and alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
The defendants denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants asserted that their house existed on the property in question for more than the last two centuries. The defendants in their written statement have not admitted the title of the appellant and of adverse possession to the knowledge of the true owner.
In the second appeal, the High Court affirmed the finding of ownership in favor of the plaintiff and relied upon electricity and house tax bills showing the possession of the defendants over the suit property
The Supreme Court expounded that long and continuous possession cannot be termed as adverse possession so as to perfect title within the meaning of Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
The Supreme Court stated that,
“In the present case, the defendants have not admitted the vesting of the suit property with the Managing Officer and the factum of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have denied the title not only of the Managing Officer but also of the plaintiff. The plea of the defendant is one of continuous possession but there is no plea that such possession was hostile to the true owner of the suit property. The evidence of the defendants is that of continuous possession. Some of the receipts pertain to 1963 but possession since November, 1963 till the filing of the suit will not ripe into title as the defendants never admitted the plaintiff-appellant to be owner or that the land ever vested with the Managing Officer. In view of the judgments referred to above, we find that the findings recorded by the High Court that the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession are not legally sustainable.”
Read the judgement:
Picture Source :
