The Supreme Court has held that a tenant cannot claim adverse possession, as in such a case, only possession is permissive in nature against landlords. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal allowed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s 2012 order, which has set aside judgements of the first appeal court and the trial court and dismissed a suit by the plaintiff for being barred by limitation.
The dispute is related to a 3,500 sq ft plot in Hardoi in Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claimed the title of the open piece of land through a registered sale deed of January 21, 1966, from the erstwhile Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. They also claimed to have received possession pursuant to the sale deed.
In 1975, when the appellant tried to raise the construction over the land purchased, the defendants objected and caused hindrance giving rise to the filing of the suit in question on May 28, 1975, seeking a relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession.
The defendant-respondent contended that there had been prior proceedings between Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants (ancestors of the respondent) in the year 1944 where a suit was filed for arrears of rent with respect to Plot No. 1019, 1022, and 1023. Under the settlement between the zamindar and co-sharers, the land in question came to Siddheshwari Narain and Deep Chandra in a private partition, and as such these co-sharers became the owners of the land.
The apex court, however, said the High Court fell in serious error by dismissing the suit of the appellant on the ground of limitation as according to it, the defendant respondent had matured their rights or rather perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed.
Among the reasons, the top court said the High Court has not dealt with the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appeal court with respect to the issue of Limitation and the evidence considered by them. The High Court while hearing the second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, and having re-appreciated the findings to disturb findings of fact, committed an error, it said.
It also pointed out the High Court has not recorded any finding that the plaintiff appellants were not the owners or that they have failed to prove the ownership. The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944, the bench said.
“In our considered view, the plaintiff appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966. The dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior to it. Admittedly from the date of the sale deed, the suit was filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975. Even if it is assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, their possession could not have been adverse even to The Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse. There were no proceedings for possession prior to 1966,” the bench said.
The HC also noted that the first appellate court having recorded a specific finding that the land in suit was not covered by Zamindari Abolition as it was non-agricultural land, the claim of ownership from the date of abolition of zamindari was also without any merit. The finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. The defendant respondents thus having failed to establish their title, would have no right to retain the possession, it said.
Comments
0 comment