Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal before the Bombay High Court arising from a property dispute. The appellants (defendants) are the legal representatives of Mahadeo Shinde, and the respondents (plaintiffs) are Shakuntala Pandurang Shinde and others. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.244/1985 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction over suit properties comprising land at City Survey Nos.894/1, 894/2, and 896 in Kolhapur. The trial court and the lower appellate court concurrently held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title by adverse possession. The defendants claimed title through a sale deed dated September 22, 1943 executed by deceased Krishna in favour of Mahadeo. The plaintiffs conceded that there was sufficient evidence on record showing execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs' possession from 1953 to 1985 was permissive and not hostile, as they accepted the defendants' title. The plea of adverse possession was raised for the first time in 1985. The High Court, hearing the second appeal on two substantial questions of law, held that the lower appellate court did not err in law. The plaintiffs failed to prove continuous physical possession for more than 12 years hostile to the title holder. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The plaintiffs claimed title by adverse possession but failed to prove continuous, hostile possession for 12 years. The court held that mere long possession is not enough; possession must be adverse to the true owner's interest. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Title by Sale Deed - Execution and Proof - The defendants relied on a sale deed dated September 22, 1943 executed by deceased Krishna in favour of Mahadeo. The plaintiffs conceded sufficient evidence on record showing execution of the sale deed, which established the defendants' title. (Paras 1-3) C) Property Law - Permissive Possession - Acceptance of Title - The plaintiffs' possession from 1953 to 1985 was permissive and not hostile, as they accepted the defendants' title. The plea of adverse possession raised for the first time in 1985 was not sustainable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in law in not considering that the plaintiffs conceded sufficient evidence showing execution of sale deed in 1943 and acceptance of defendants' title since 1953, and whether the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous physical possession for more than 12 years hostile to the title holder.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- burden of proof
- continuous hostile possession
- permissive possession
- title by sale deed
- limitation
