Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a piece of land measuring 18 Biswas Pukhta comprised in Khasra No. 2348 and Khasra No. 2458, situated in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, on both sides of National Highway No. 10. On 28th March 1981, the original plaintiffs, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, filed a suit for possession before the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Bahadurgarh, claiming ownership based on revenue records and alleging that the defendants, the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD), had unauthorizedly occupied the land approximately three and a half years prior. The defendants filed a written statement on 17th September 1985, asserting continuous possession since 1879-80 and claiming ownership by adverse possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on 2nd May 1986, holding that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession and that their possession was permissive. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision on 8th October 1987, dismissing the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs then filed a regular second appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which allowed the appeal on 31st January 2019, restoring the Trial Court's decree. The High Court held that by taking the plea of adverse possession, the defendants impliedly admitted the plaintiffs' title, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the State's plea of adverse possession impliedly admits the plaintiffs' title, and the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had established their title through revenue records and sale deeds, and the defendants' possession was permissive. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Implied Admission of Title - Order VIII Rule 5 CPC - By taking the plea of adverse possession, the State impliedly admits the title of the plaintiffs, as failure to specifically deny ownership amounts to admission under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Paras 8.1-8.2) B) Constitutional Law - State's Claim of Adverse Possession - Welfare State - The State cannot claim title by adverse possession against its own citizens, as it would be contrary to the principles of a welfare State and undermine citizens' constitutional rights. (Para 6(ii)) C) Property Law - Burden of Proof - Suit for Possession - The plaintiff must stand on the strength of their own title, but if the defendant does not deny the plaintiff's title, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession. (Paras 5(ii), 6(v)) D) Evidence Act - Presumption of Ownership - Section 110 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Continuous possession raises a presumption of ownership, but this presumption can be rebutted by evidence of permissive possession or lack of title. (Para 5(iii)) E) Limitation Act - Bar of Limitation - Article 65 Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiffs' suit for possession is not barred by limitation if the defendants' possession is permissive and not adverse. (Para 5(iii))
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the First Appellate Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the State's plea of adverse possession and the plaintiffs' title.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Implied admission of title
- State cannot claim adverse possession against citizens
- Burden of proof
- Order VIII Rule 5 CPC
- Section 110 Indian Evidence Act
- Article 65 Limitation Act
