High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/3428/1985allowed

Lekh Ram And ORS. v. Ami Lal

2024-07-19Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl43 pages

!" ! #$% & %'

(())

%'+,%

-' '

* '

/01 '

%'&1 0

-'+) %'&1 0

,1 0 (())

0 3 '

& .% '

7) 8 9+(1 0

5$ $

,% 9'2)1 0

(() :' 3

;

4 "4! <<<<

))2

! "#$% & &' &() &'% 4 "4!

&()& 4%)) ,

(() ',+&

(+ '%

>%) (())

',+&

(+ '%

>%)

>+) ',+&

! ?

*+,* *-. =%

(()

) '

+) !

4-4

&()& (()

&)A

; '

&'6

,% # '

&'6

;; '

3)2 +,%'

) '

&'6

,%1 >%

B?1 - ) -'$1 32 )%

) (()

+>& )%+,% '+ (() 2 ('

+,%

&() >+ (()

&()

(() 3

3)2 +,%'

) '

&'6

(() 3

&'6

;

+>& %'

3)2(() (() 3

(+'% ('

('('A ',

)

( 0)A %'

(() C+ ',

' ))

&%'E

0+'

('('A

F+

% 0

(('+

A %'

) (()

+>& (()

)%+,%

) '

+) !

4-4 >+

& '

(()

+) !

4-4 #'

) (())

+>&

(()

))2 (()

%+)

('& '

( ()

((

(+ >2

2 >0

'+&

('0

+) !

4-41 (()

))2 (()

&)A '

3)2 +,%'

) '

&'6

,%1

B?1 - ) -'$1 32 )%

&()

,+)'

(()

& 2+)

+>6 '

(()

()

('&'

('0

+) !

4-4 MAIN CASE

* #

3 %'

%0 ) ,+)'

(()

! (

)

:' 3 )'

2 '

) & +'

> ,%

&('

G%2 3 1 G% 3 1 G% ' 3 "" 1 "" "

* )), 3%+ -+'1 =%

)

9+',

&' %

' 4%)) ,

' !

(

@ '

(()) (() ) (())

* #'

) (())

+>& ('

&'A '

) ) 2 '

(

+&(

)

()

)

('('A

)) & 4% 1 ('

' (())

'('

>& 0'

;

+>&

+% ''

))&

0+'

& 4%

('+ 0

)

('+

%+ %'

> '0

;

+>&

1 %'

(

)

()

2% 1

)

))

& 4%

2% 1 ('

' :()

'+ 0'

) ('

(()) : -D

2%%'

& 4%

2 '

)

(+ &

)

& &)

;

',+

()

(())

( ))A

& >'

)

) )

))

0+'

& 4% ;

+>&

0'' (())

& 4%

2 '

) '

%1 (())

),) '(' 0

%0 >& 2 '

;

+'%'

,%) ,%

( ))A 0''

))A

+,, & 4% 0'

$ .

& 0'

) '& .

& .

+ '&

%' ;

',+ () 0'

) )21

( ))A 0'' ('0

&(+,

+&(

,'+ ) #'

) (())

+'%'

+>&

)

) )

'& )

1 !

1 '&

& 6&>

('+

)

6&>

? ?

7C -1 6&>

7C - 6&>

"!"

7C - 1 4%+

) ;

+>& %+ 0

('+

) ('

)

) &+% )

;

+>& 0

()

&+% )

'>+ '& +&

('+

)

+&(

( '

6&> %+ ()

,'+ ) ;

+>& >%

%01 0

( & > '0

+'&

6+'

%2 ''

(

;

+>&

,'+ 1

) (())

+'%'

+>&

(('

+(('

() %

)

F+

) &' %

C+ (2'

A 7C - !? !?

0+'

A &$

-D

''1

!? !?

(2'

A ;

+>&

(

(()) ;

',+

) )2

('0

( $ 2), ('

)

(('

((' 1

'F+ ' '2

' ;

+>&

)

+'1

;

',+ () 0'

( ))A () ('0

)

>C1

,'+ ) ;

+(('

',+& )'

) (())

') +(

,) H

Radhey Shyam vs. Raj Kumar '('

2010(2) RCR (Civil) 697.

) (())

') +(

5 I>) +('& ;

M.Radheshyamlal vs. V Sandhya and another '('

2024 SCC Online SC 318 () 0'

'+ 2 '

%+)

' )A ( )

, >

& +

()

+'%'

> '0

()

'+ 2 '

%''1 %'

F+ A

0+'

()

,:)

'F+ ' % )1 (

)

)')A

' % ) )

) '+ 2 '

&')A >+ ('

) & % 2+)

F+ ) %' ;

+'%'

,%) ,%

(

' 'F+ ' () ('01 %0

( ()

+(('

()

)

>%)

@+'%'1 ')

() )'

) (())

5 I>) +('&

T.Anjanappa and others vs. Somalingappa and another '('

2006(7) SCC 570

,) H

Sandeep and others vs. Fateh Singh and others1 '('

2017(1) PLJ ;

+>&

> '0

,) .+,

')0

2%%'

+$%)

'0 + '' &' 'A 9 '

() 0'

;

+'%'

+>& ()

0 ('

'+ +)

('0'

)

%+) %0

>% '

1 '0

* ?

):+

)

+>&

' )2 =% ()

,%) ,% %&

( ''

& (','(%

%2 () (

)

( ))&

0+'

& 4% 1 ('

& ;

+>&

& )1

(','(% (')

'A >6

() $

) )' %+

('&

0 )

6+'

;

',+ %+

& @+'%'

& (','(%

'()A

%2 ()

( ))A

2))

' 'F+ ' () ('0 )

2 '

(

;

+'%'

',+

>%)

& .

.%'

%'+

6&>

? "

7C -1

.%'

;

+>&

6&>

''' )'

)

(()) )%+,%

& 4%+

& >+

%'I

.%'

((' )A1

'''

6&>

+> F+ 6&>

! 1

& &

& '

& #$% & 2% (('

D ,%) ,%

2%%'

)

F+

)) & 4%

>)$ >

)

+) 0

4% &

#) .

& %0

+) 0

)

>%) "

) 3

+)A '

) (

D 1 -D

2))

(2'

A 7C - ' $

'' D% ) '''

& -D 30)

,%) ,% %'

32)1 2%

#)()

1 & >+

) , %0

('>)& ','

,% %'

,1 C+ (2'

7C -

(2'

7C - ;

+>&

+ >0

) (('

%+) '2

(+'( '1

-D 1

2' 0

'& A ()

)

') +(

Bhupinder Nath (died) through LRs and another vs. Surasti (died) through LRs '('

2005(2) RCR (Civil) 335; 6+,& &%) -' ,%

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Khazana Ram '('

1999(3) CivCC 27

2))

5 I>) +('&

Muddas Ani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives vs. Mudda Ani Sarojana '('

(2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 288

+(('

',+& .

) 3

2))

)

+>& (()

%+)

&('&

+) 4-4

(+'( 1

''' ''

! ! !

(

4+'1 4'

)

0+'

3 +'

( A (()

)

!? ! ?1

%2 +

3 '

C()

( )

!? ! ?

(+'

0 ! !

) & -'$ ),) '(' 0

3 =% 0'&

0 %0

,%) ,%

& -'$ &+

3 !!

* )), 3%+ -+'

' ! !

(

%''1 (()

&0 #$% & (()

(

>' 5 E>) ,%

%''

#$% &(()) 3 '

&('&

#$% & &

& >'

4))'1 ;

9'1 9+'+,'&

! !"

% &('&

& -'$ %A

3 !!

0+'

& -'$ @+'%'

& &+

? !

C+'

> '0

4))'

;

9' (() (()) #$% & ((' &

& % & -'$ &('&

3 !!

% &+

3 !!

0+'

& -'$

* !

) (())

'>+)

+>&

(()

)

>%) 3

&('&

()

'' ;

+>& 0

( &+

+,% ') +(

& (())

&('&

>'+,%

'' 0

'&)A

%2 &'

&('&

;

+'%'

+>&

(())

&('&

''1

'' #$% &(()) 3 0

& ;

+>&

(())

2% '

'A ('

0+'

3 ;

',+

+% &('&

()1 ('A 2+) %0

&& )A &0

(()

2+) %0 ,

&('&

1 &'

1 2%

(() ;

+'%'

+>&

(()

)

(('('

'()A 2+) %0

) (())

2+) %0

C()

+% &('&

() ;

',+ ''

''' 3

' ( + + &( ('

! ! !

3 '

'' ('('A

)

!? ! ?

0+'

3 ;

+>& 0

)),)

(

( A (()

' ')0 (+'(

(() #'

)

+>& &+

? !

> )+)A

)),)

(

)A 0 '

0 ,

&+%

& #$% &

& %0

& ;

''1

& ''

4))'

;

%+ 0

>' ,%

2))

%' '

0') (())

2% '

,% ;

+>&

) &

,+)'

(()

)

(

!? ! ?

%''

3 &

' ! !

0+'

& -'$ '+&0 ''

!? ! ?

)

F+ A

* =%

%' )'

) (())

2))

) 3

('+ (('

(

,+)'

(()

&(+,

'& &'

)),) A1 ('0'

A %0

(

)

) )2 %+

)

2 '

(

1 '

) %'

;

3 %'

(())

' ''

2 '

) ('

%&1 ('

& 4% 1 2%

,' %'

3 ?

2 '

)

2 '

( )

F+

() 0'

( () 0'

5 E>) +('&

)

! !

M.Radheshyamlal +(' () ')

5 E>) +('&

Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India

2004) 10 SCC 7791

> '0 ('0

('A $

()

' 2' ,+)

,%+) 2 '

%''

)2+)

+))A

>)1 C)+

01 % )

+'A ('

%+ ('

) 2 '

(

'F+ '

;

2% 1 % &

2%%'

(

+'>1

0 2%%'

$ 2

('A

0 %2 )

+ ;

+'%'

> '0 ('

()

F+

0+'1

'+ 2 '

1 %''1

'F+ ' )')A () >)

))

'A >)

M.Radheshyamlal

+('1

& 4

H 5 E>) +('&

M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple<5 J.) Vs. Suresh Das

2020) 1 SCC 11

> '0 () 0'

' )A (1 )

, >

& +

()

%''

0 ;

+'%'

> '0 0

)A + '' &'

()

)

> F+ ()

)

+(()A A () )A

5 E>) +('&

M.Radheshyamlal +(' > '0

1 () 0'

++ 2' ,+)

&' %

&+ () ('0

)0 ('

'('+ %'

>)2 J

Constitution Bench M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple<5 J.) v. Suresh Das

1142 ! "

# $ % &' ( )) & &

& & *& & &

& & + & , & & + & & &" & , + &

& &+ & # & & +& - !

./& & 0 & 1 & 0 + & & & , A plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner and the law is not readily accepting of such a case unless a clear and cogent basis has been made out in the pleadings and established in the evidence."

. /

11. * Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India,

"11 * & & %2 & 3 4 & " & * 2 , &+& 1 * & &1 .$$ 5 4&$"6 *-

78$ 9:! $"6.

77/$;9: ) <" $5"6.

77;/;$ 98;: /! 1 1 & ! + &&

Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. 60 $ .) / -=5 $ 6.

778/>$ > :

. /

12. , (a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner; (b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;

(c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and (d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed.

13. It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the

ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff."

)

! %+

) )21

'F+ ' () ('0 %

% )1 (

+'>

) $ 2), '+ 2 '

) ) A'

) ! ! ?

(

) 0'

('+

'' 6&>

& '

'F+ '&

&' %

>' )

('+ 6&>

"!"

7C -

2+)

%2 4%+

) 2 '

(

)

& 4% 2%

' (())

6&>

7C -1

4%+

6&>

? ? 7C - =%+ 0

6&> +&(

'+%

% '

-+ 6> # 0 + 1 "

('0

(() >) 5'A

'' '

,% ('+

) &)

) 1 &+% )

% )

)%+,%1

)

1 '0 + '' ') +(

) ) ) A'

)

,'+ ) =% ()

+,% '

>%)

:' 3 %'

& '''

%' 6&>

+> F+ 6&>

! 1

(('1

( ;

','1

2+) ')0

(' '&

('+

%& )0

+&(

'+% %

0'&

'&)A )'

4%+

)

(('

A 30)

,% (('

-D

( ))A

) (()

>' =%

% , '

6&>

=% '+ '

)

')0 ('

) )'

) 3

',+&

'('+ %'

>)2 ?@ & , A & "

'0'1

) %)) ,

1 %'

('A'

2' '%'

()

=% '

',+&

>%)

& ('0'

)0 ('

)

',+&

'('+ %'

>)2 ?C A- he was not remained in occupation of the same continuously since 1966<67 to 1970<71. The name of Chuna son of Ishri has been entered. According to his version, the plaintiff has not obtained the right of adverse possession.

But I am not satisfied with this contention raised, reason being that there is no such plea to the written statement of the defendants regarding the alleged entries ( A- A C A- , D= & 7> 2> , & A The possibilities cannot be ruled out that at the time of making the entries the name of Chunna has been entered. In fact, he was the son of Jia Ram and, therefore, this entry will not affect the right of the plaintiff."

=% (()) )

(

(' !

& 4%+

(('

6&>

>+ > '0 J (('

& .

'0 + K !

=% >0 > '0

2))

(()) ' > )+)A

)),) ('0'

%0 ('

('0

=% > '0

()

& ','

)), '

2' ,)A () +(

6&>

2' ('+

%& )0

C()

(

& 4%+

)+&

>0 %' 6&> F+

()

'0'1

>01 +&(

'+%

% '

6&>

%+) %0

+'%'

> '0

> ) A

'+) + & &$

'A1

& 4%+

' %+

& 2+)

>) +

2% ' 2 '

('('A

() ('0 () 0'

) =% '

(()) %0 '

+&(

> '0

& ' &())A ('0'

)2 ) 2

5 E>) +('&

=% 5 I>) +('&

"Prataprai N.

Kothari Vs. John Braganza"1 '('

(1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases

() > '0

' ?

- & & $ A

It is settled law that in the absence of any plea, no evidence is admissible. The Single Judge of the High Court overlooked that when there was no plea or issue on the question of title, no evidence whatever was admissible regarding the same. ( & = & B ;

()

C()

'A ( 4%+

>0 6&>

(

>) 4

(+'( )

2 '

(

+ 0'

) ) &' %

)

()

* )), 3%+ -+'

&' %

, >'

)

2 '

%''

'(' )

F+

))

0+'

& 4%

' (())

1 %'

) % '+ 0'

)

& 4%

+ '&

%' '

% .

$ 2),

2% '

' & 4% %+

% -'

1 1 >

' '('+ %'

>)2 "2.

That in the copy of the said jamabandi the defendants are recorded as owners of the said land.,

, &

& & 1 9 the corresponding ownership rights of the defts in respect thereof have become extinguished:< ./ , 4"&"% 9 That before the said proceedings the plaintiff was inpossession of the suit land as owner thereof. That in< repartition in the course of the said proceeding the land in suit was allotted in favour of Ram Chand s/o Dhanna, father of defts Nos.1 to 5 and grand father of defts Nos.6 to 8. That Jia Ram father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land at that time.

.&/ ,& & &

That Ram Chand s/o Dhanna recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1975<76 has died and that the mutation of succession has been attested in favour of the defts who are impleaded in the suit as defts." ;

1 %'

'' 0

'&)A

)

2 '

)

()

( ))A &

))&

0+'

& 4%

& ;

))& ''

')>)

)

('+

'&)A

()

;

:A'

(('C & & )), '+ %'

)

0 ','

('+

>01

(('

>' '

,0 (2'

A 30)

,% -D

!? !?

-D

2%%'

& 4%

2 '

)

(+ &

)

=% '+ '

)

')0 ('

0 -D

'('+

' "......I am not aware as to whether Ram Chander, defendant in this case, was put as owner of land in dispute at the time of consolidation period or not......"

=% '

4+'1 %20'1 $

0'&

, () '+% %)

(

0+'

)0 ('

)

(

'('+ %'

>)2 ?F

, !

C - 7>7A&

) & &

because in this case before partition, father of the present plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. Thereafter, consolidation of holdings took place in the village and the alleged land was allotted to the deceased Ram Chand, who was father of the defendants No. 2 to 5 and grand father of defendants No. 5 to 8 and that Jia Ram had not handed over the possession of the suit land to the allottee and remained in possession of the same without any interruption therein...." ?

(())

+'&

6+'

%+ %'

&+% )

+(('

()1 (

()

'6 ',+&

(())

(()) 2%'

(

)

'('+ %'

>)2 ?

) & *-

7>!=&(>2*$ <

G=$H& 7>!

A ! < $ 7>9 !

;25$< ) $ **$ < G=$.$/ & 5$< ) $A4< $ 2 + & In my opinion, none of these authorities is applicable to the facts of this case, because in our case, the plaintiff had claimed adverse possession on the ground that after consolidation

proceedings were held, and after the suit property was allotted to Ram Chander, in re<partition proceedings, Jia Ram, who was in possession of the suit property, was not dispossessed, and that, possession of Jia Ram became adverse from the day, it was allotted to Ram Chander, in repartition proceedings. In view of distinguishable facts, none of the authorities cited by Sh.K.L.Dang, learned counsel for the appellants, is of any help of the appellants, while in the present case, the authority of 1981 Punjab Record 1911 is applicable on all fours......"

-'0'

)),) A

> '0

(

) =% '

> '0 %'

2 '

) ;

(+ %' '

'' 0

+(('

;

(','(% 1

()

)

2 '

%' ('

)

> '0

''A ()

& %+ >

; 2+) ')0

& 1 (

) ('

2 '

& '1

'A ) &$

> '0

%0 & ''

& +& 0 70

> '0

(

)

() )

F+

)) & 4% +'%'

) & 4% %0

& %+ >

(()) +'%'

> '0 '&

))& & 4% 1

>& 0'

>01

))&

))& ''

)

+& (

)

:('+

1 0

)

(('

>C 0

') 0

+(('

0'&

A 30)

,% 2% (('

-D 1

')0 ('

'('+ %'

>0 %

2' & 4%

2 '

)

(+ &

)

=%+

> '0

(()) ' > )

%0A

('0 0,+ 0'&

>+ %20'

@ '

(()) %0 +&

, () '+% %+ >

%+,%

''A 6&>

('+

) +% &(%

)

>%)

( '

(

& %A 2'

$ 2),

& >+ %20'1 '+) ('+ 2'

2+)

( ))A

& %'

) &

)

'+ .

& %'

(

) & 4% 70

% %'

) )) &'

) 2 '

(

)0 ('

(' 2'

','

'('+ %'

>)2 ".....It is not admitted that Jia Ram alleged father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land at that time. It is totally incorrect to suggest that Ram Chander ever asked the said Jia Ram to hand over possession of the suit land from Jia Ram above said. The question of any refusal by Jia Ram does not arise......

I11111111111

It is not admitted that after the death of the father of the plaintiff, he remained in possession of the suit land and has at all material times came to be owner of the suit land and denied the title of the defendants in respect thereof......"

%0A

('0 () 0'

() ('0 0'A ( 0'

1 F+ ()

%+ &')A

)

& %'

(

$ 2),1

& 2+)

)) '

;

& 1 %'

(

'('+ %'

>)2 ?1.

Not admitted. The plaintiff is not admitted to be in possession of the suit land as continuously cultivating it for more than 25 years openly, and under assertions of claim of ownership."

=% 5 E>) +('&

>%)

Muddas Ani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives +('1 2+)

+'%'

&+% (' '&

(

& :(' (())

(' 2'

'('+ %'

>0 ' )')A

%>) ;

1 () '

)

2 '

( (' '& %'

( >

) ! =%

((

() '

0')

+ &

&('

3 %'

( ('

2 '

('('A

'+&

$ 2), ',

) =% 5 E>) +('&

(' "

> '0 3

>) >)

( +,%'

2 '1

' ('A +)

%0 F+ C+

) 1 &'

1 2%

0 '

( +& C+

) 0

3 1 %'

(

)

C+

0+'

)

( ))A

& =%'

() '

)

('+

'' ;

)

))& %0

('+

2%'

+( ) 0'

&())A '

) ! @+'%'

('+ (' !

2+)

' )A

=% @ '

(())

) %'

>01

+'&

6+' +(%) '

=% '

2))

(())

+& 0

) )2

)),) A ('0'

A ;

',+

>%)

)+&

6&>

?&& = "&=B

)+&

','

+) 0

& &

6&>

J, '

&'+

K ;

',+

>%)

2+) &

)) 2%

+ )

2+)

,%)A ' ;

+(('

',+&

>01 ')

() +(

,) H

Bhupinder Nath (Died) through L.Rs. and another (supra) &%) -' ,%

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Khazana Ram (supra/

1 )'

) (())

') +(

,) H

Sandeep and others vs. Fateh Singh and others '('

2017(1) PLJ 51 ( #0 (()

" !" :! "

) ,

5 I>) +('& ''

! ! "

',+&

(

',+&

+'%'

>01 6&>

"!"

7C - 1

7C -

? ?

7C -

+) 0

)+&

&+% )

% )1 ('

)

'0'1 )'

,) H

Bhupinder Nath (Died) through LRs and others (supra) 2

'0 + ''

JH )) #,

& )"&$&$/"&#K =% )'

,) .+,

> '0

>) , (A >+ %

' )

2 '

=%'

'$ ' >2

2 '

&+% 'A

+( 0'

''' '

%2 % ) & ) 2 '

)

1 '

%2 %'

)

2%'

) & ) 2 '

;

) )2 &' )

)

' ('0 '

('0

; 2+) +'%'

')0

Bhupinder Nath (Died) through LRs and others

(supra), ')0 &'

('0 0'

('+

)

G%+

;

7C -1 3$ 5$'2'

7C - 6&>

7C - 1

7C - ?1

7C - "1

7C -

+> F+ 6&>

%) >)

% '0'1

1 ''

Ram Lal and others Vs.

Chetu @ Chet Ram and others1 AIR 1958 Punjab 3351

> '0 0'

2+) && 2' ,+)

,%+) 2 '

& (' +)'

& &+ &&

2' &+ &

,% &+ +)1 (

+ % )1

++ C)+

%+) &

+'A ('

& Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and others Vs.

Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patila (Dead) by LRs and heirs etc. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 8951

5 E>) +('& > '0 )

2+) >,

'& E

' >&

' ) ?

>+'

('0

() '& 0)A

() () 0'

F+ 0) 0

% ) ') 2 '

) ('('A ) & =%

% )'

,) .+,

Bhupinder Nath (Died) through LRs and others (supra)

+ 'A

6&>

('+

%20'

6&>

' '& 'A

>0 %+ )2 ) 2

>0 5 E>) +('&

H 2+) 1

'+&

1 , ,

=%+ 2+)

+'%'

:' 3 )')A

State of Himachal Pradesh vs.

Khazana Ram (supra/% 'A

)+&

','

LCJ

?4C4 'Nazaiz5&'B

> '0 )'

,) .+, '&

'A1

(('

+%'

+& %'

'(' 7C -D : & 0 + -2'

+,,

(('('

)),)

+%'

;

>01 %'

2' J38 8K

6&>

('+

+'%'

;

) '

('+ >0

>%)

2+)

%2 2%' ('

)

) 2 '

+%'

+( '

'0 + '' +)A ''

((' '& 6&>

('+

>0 2

1 6&>

('+

)

) 2 '

+%'

8 +(

) ,

Sandeep and others (supra),

> '0 )%+,%

)

L4& J>+

'0 + ''1

Mukhalfana %+

> '0

:(())

>) >)

)0 ('

'('+ %'

>)2 ?;

* 2 &

The adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial to the title of the true owner. The said possession must be adequate in continuity, to the knowledge of the true owner and it must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner. A person claiming adverse possession has to show on which date he came into possession, what was the nature of his possession, whether the factum of his possession was known to the true owner, how long his possession continued and whether his possession was open and undisturbed. It is further the settled principle of law that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the title of the true owner.

I11111 > Hemaji Waghaji Jat Versus Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 401the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that law of adverse possession which cause an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. It was further laid down in this case that there must be evidence when the possession became adverse.

starting point of limitation against the affected party can be ascertained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors 2007(2) R.C.R (Civil) 847 has laid down that mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse.

I11111 7 111111 #& & Bhaibandi or Gair Marusi. Their possession in the revenue record at no point of time has been reflected as adverse (Mukhalfana). Thus, appellants<plaintiffs have not been able to establish the ingredients of the adverse possession.B 70

1 6&>

'& L+$%) E

=% ',+& '

>%)

&('&

(()

+) 4-4

&())A

0 H' )

',+& 1

2+)

'A ''

+) 4-4

'('+ %'

>)2 ?3. Compromise of suit.K@ &= & [in writing and signed by the parties] &=2 the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith6 &=2 &=2

: [Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other= & + H & = & + &" = : 6#1 KAn agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not he deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.]"

('+ >0 ('0

2+)

('0

6+ 2%))A

(' )2+) ,'& &('&

2%'

( 2%) ('

+>6 &'

(2'

+% ,'& 1 &('&

(

' %'2 ;

('0

('A )),

('A

6+ &

2+)

F+

=% C()

('0

,'& &('&

0 0 >) '

;

4 '

%))

& )2+)

'+)

;

,'&

&('&

&+% )

('+

>%)

(() 70

(()

&('&

,'& 1 +'%'

0'&

(())

' >$

) 3

& (())

%2 %'

&('&

(

('('A %+ F+

,'& :

&('&

) ')

()

>%)

('+ +'

%2 +

+ &( ,

;

((' () ))2

' 'F+ '

2+)

%2 0

F+ >)

;

(+ ',+)'

(()

)

!? ! ?

)

!4 4'

() (

))2

?After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is ordered that in case the respondent wants to sell the property in dispute during the pendency of this appeal, he would mention in the sale deed that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the decrees granted by the Courts in this litigation against which this appeal is pending in this Court. Without writing this in the sale deed, he would not be allowed to sell the property * &

* &$0 $ = & " *

, = (

& & &

, 2 & & 2 & &

D&8 7>8 ('+ >0 ''

2+)

> '0

)) ('('A

(+ +'

( A (()1

% 2+) %0 &

) % >& 2 '

('('A '+ '

(

(()) (()

(

%+ 2'

(

) 1 % 2+)

))2

)) ('('A

4? 4

) (() & -'$ %1 ,'

& &

'& ''A ('

& & -'$

=% () $

(()

& -'$ ) )

,' %'

' ' ! !

>& 2 '

+> F+ )A &

#) 1 %+ %

&() ; 2+) ')0

)%+,%

(() )

1 >+ (A '

C+' )

(()

('+

C+' 2+)

)

! !

((' )A ))+

0 =% )

')A

) 3 =%

(()

))2

+>6 6+ C(

@'& '

>0 (()

&01

(('

0'& ''

!? ! ?1

+' '

0+'

=%''1 4 "4!

)

' *

3)2 %'

&%'

()

& -'$ %1 ,'

) >

) ' &'6

,% 3)21 ('

(()

) "

,%1 2% (+'% ('

) '& & -'$ %1

) ('

) & +'

(()

' &'6

,% 3)2 ) ',

' ))

0+'

>% (()

;

)

'' ( ( A (()

& =%+ '

, '

0+'1 & -'$ +'%'

) ('('A

! ! ! 1 4'

)

' C+ (

) 1

%2 +

( )

!? ! ?

=% ')0 ('

! ! !

(

'('+ %'

>)2 ?% % ;2

& &

5$A $ $27 L!" #1 % ) C.M.No.4173<C of 2011 has been moved by Dr.Mrs.Amarjit Singh wife of Lt.Dr.Amarjit Singh and Dr. Vanit Nalwa daughter of late Dr.Amarjit Singh residents of House No.S<64, Panchseel Park, New Delhi, for impleadment on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal they have purchased the suit property from respondent Ami Lal. Along with these applications sale deeds in favour of the applicants have also been produced on record. However, a perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds would show that there is no mention of the fact of litigation, as directed by this Court vide order dated 6.2.1986. Let a show cause notice be issued to respondent No.1 for 7.9.2011 to explain as to why there is a violation of the order dated 6.2.1986.

;

& -'$ & '' &+

? !

& &('&

() (())

1 (())

#$% & @'

(+'( ()1

' ')

() +(

? !

- (

4))'

;

9'1

)%+,%

C% > +& >+

(' '' (() =%

>)A & >

(() '

+) 4-4

&('&

))2

3 &('&

& (())

('+

0)+1 )%+,%

C% > 1

& )), &('&

(())

#$% &

'' >+ %'

'' &('&

)) %'

(())

& :&('&

#$% &

& &+

' ! !

0+'

& -'$

'+&0 ''

!? ! ?

(

) ,'

'('+ %'

>0 ;

''1 +&

(() (

4))'

;

9' %+

2% ' ('

(()1

))A

)),

& #$% &1

0 #'

) (())

+>& %'

& & (())

#$% &

(+ > '0

+& 0

( #$% &

0 '0'1

&('&

() >2

(' & '

2+) %0

&& )A &0

(()

&('&

2+)

%0 ) (() (

& =%

+'('

(

%' 2'

0') %'

(())

4))'

;

9' ')A

)),

& (())

& -'$

' ! !

"1 (' '& ((' )A

))+

(

( A (()

'+&0 ''

(

!? ! ?

=% 4'

! ?

&( (

> '0

(()) ()

)

& +'

( A )

2+) +& ))A

+)) 0

)2 =%+ ''

)A ')

+ 3

& >

(()

+) 4-4

; 2+) ')0

,+)'

(()

) '

-+ 6>

4-4

(','(% "

+ H

@ 0 .+,

H % 5 E>) +('&

Pankajakshi (dead) through legal representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others and other connected matters '('

(2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1571

> '0

) -'+'

& & 1

"?1

(()

-+ 6>

1 ('0

2+)

-+ 6>

('0

(() 2+) ) ,% '& 0'A ' (

(()

+>'

,'+

& %'

+% ,'+

,'+ 3

''A )2

& + & , %0

' )2

2 >0

'+&

(

@ '

(()) %0

'+ 0 &'

+& +)

('0'

&(+,

)),)1 ,

) )2 ' >

+&(

2+) %+ &$ +

>0 ('0

,)A1 ',+)'

(()

))2

(()) !

(()

2 >0

0.,-.-+

! M) 1)%#)% 2(%&/"3'4 %&2!3%5* %24!

1)%#)% %(! #&6$%* %24!