Case title: M. Radheshyamlal vs. V Sandhya and Anr.
Case no.: Civil Appeals @ SLP No. 19059-61 of 2014.
Decided on: 18.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves three separate suits arising from Original Suit No. 12091 of 2010, where the plaintiff claimed adverse possession of a property for 45 years. The defendants contested this claim, referring to a settlement deed from 1945 by the original owner. The High Court ruled against the plaintiff, stating a lack of proof for adverse possession. The beneficiaries of the settlement deed were found to have better title than the plaintiff. Adverse possession requires specific proof of possession facts, and the High Court dismissed all appeals by the plaintiff regarding adverse possession claims.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case include the principles of adverse possession. To prove adverse possession, the plaintiff needed to establish key elements such as claiming possession adverse to the true owner, proving long and continuous possession known to the true owner, specifying when possession began, and demonstrating that possession was open and undisturbed. Adverse possession is based on continuous wrongful possession for over 12 years, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming adverse possession to clearly plead and establish all necessary facts to support their claim.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The contentions of the appellant, who was the original plaintiff in the case, included the argument that a will was executed by the original owner on December 1, 1945. The appellant claimed that rights to the property in Chennai could only be claimed based on the will if a probate or letters of administration were obtained. Additionally, the appellant asserted that they had been in possession of part of the property since 1995 and argued that the defendants had no rightful claim to the property. The appellant also contended that the High Court’s judgment was erroneous in dismissing their appeals.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, who were the defendants in the case, supported the impugned decision of the High Court. They argued that the plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession and that the settlement deed from 1945 gave the defendants better title to the property. The respondents contended that the continuous possession claimed by the plaintiff was insufficient to prove adverse possession. They maintained that the plaintiff, being a trespasser without a valid claim, could not succeed in their suit for ownership declaration based on adverse possession. Ultimately, the respondents aligned with the High Court’s decision against the plaintiff’s claims.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court analyzed the case considering the plea of adverse possession and the evidence presented. It noted that the plaintiff could not establish a specific date when adverse possession commenced, and there was no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim. The Court found that the defendants had a better title to the property due to the settlement deed from 1945, and the plaintiff’s possession was not substantiated by payment of taxes or maintenance of the property.
Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession. The appeals filed by the plaintiff were dismissed, and the decree for possession against the plaintiff was confirmed. Despite this, the Court granted the plaintiff, who was over 80 years old, additional time to vacate the property the property. The appeals were dismissed with no orders as to costs, affirming the judgment against the plaintiff’s claims of adverse possession and ownership declaration.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
