Suit for possession of portion of the property over which that kachha structure marked as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan was situate - The matter was contested by the Respondent by filing his written statement
submitting inter alia that by virtue of a Will executed by Sibo in favour of him, the Respondent had an independent interest in the property. A plea of adverse possession was also taken in the alternative. - The Trial Court dismissed said Suit by its judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 holding inter alia that the Respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession and the Suit was barred by limitation.- The Appellate Court found that the claim of Sibo having been dismissed in the earlier round, she could not have conferred any title with respect to the property by a Will in favour of
the Respondent. It was also found that the possession of the Respondent was purely permissive and that the claim on the ground of adverse possession was completely untenable. - High court reversed the finding and confirmed the trial court holding of adverse possession - Apex court held that The record clearly indicates that the possession of the Respondent of portion marked ‘ABCD’ and his occupation of the structure was purely permissive in character. At no stage the possession was hostile to the owners of the property. The element of hostility was completely missing. The finding rendered by the Appellate Court was, therefore, absolutely correct and there was no occasion for the High Court, while exercising second appellate jurisdiction, to set aside that finding.
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9087 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.13835 of 2019)
JIT RAM NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS. …Appellants
VERSUS
SATNAM SINGH …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2013 (O&M).
3. One Banta, father of Jit Ram and Sibo, died on 02.07.1992. Sibo,
though married, was not staying with her husband, but used to reside with
her father Banta. After the death of Banta, Sibo filed Civil Suit No.143 of
1993 for declaration that she had become the owner and was in possession
of land admeasuring 5 kanals out of land admeasuring 9 kanals 14 marlas
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
2
owned and possessed by Banta on the basis of Will dated 26.06.1992
executed by Banta. Sibo also sought a decree for permanent injunction to
restrain Jit Ram from interfering with her possession and from alienating
the land or any portion thereof. The Suit was dismissed by the Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, by his judgment and decree
dated 28.04.1998. It was held that the Will, on the basis of which the claim
was raised, was highly suspicious and that Sibo had failed to prove her
case.
4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by Satnam Singh, a
relation of Sibo and Jit Ram, by filing First Appeal in the court of the
Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It was submitted that with the
consent of Banta he had erected a kachha structure in the land in question
and that he was in occupation of that structure in his own right. The
contentions were rejected and the First Appeal was dismissed by the Lower
Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 14.01.2003. No further
challenge was raised and thus, the decree became final as against Sibo and
Satnam Singh, the Respondent herein.
5. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.293 of 2003 was filed by Jit Ram against
the Respondent for possession of portion of the property over which that
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
3
kachha structure marked as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan was situate. The
matter was contested by the Respondent by filing his written statement
submitting inter alia that by virtue of a Will executed by Sibo in favour of
him, the Respondent had an independent interest in the property. A plea of
adverse possession was also taken in the alternative. The Trial Court
dismissed said Suit by its judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 holding
inter alia that the Respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession
and the Suit was barred by limitation.
6. Jit Ram, being aggrieved, preferred Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2011 in
the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was allowed by
Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2013. The Appellate Court found that
the claim of Sibo having been dismissed in the earlier round, she could not
have conferred any title with respect to the property by a Will in favour of
the Respondent. It was also found that the possession of the Respondent
was purely permissive and that the claim on the ground of adverse
possession was completely untenable.
7. The Respondent, being aggrieved, filed Regular Second Appeal
No.3809 of 2013 (O&M) in the High Court. Jit Ram having expired
during the pendency of said Appeal, his heirs were substituted in his place.
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
4
By its Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2019 said Second Appeal was
allowed by the High Court. The High Court approved the findings of the
Appellate Court insofar as it was held that the Respondent could not have
succeeded to the suit property on the basis of any will executed by Sibo.
However, the finding as regards issue of adverse possession was reversed
and the finding of the Trial Court was restored. It was observed that the
Respondent had remained in open and hostile possession of the Suit
property which he had constructed in the year 1989.
8. In this Appeal we have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned Advocate
for the Appellant and Ms. Tina Garg, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
9. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the Respondent
of portion marked ‘ABCD’ and his occupation of the structure was purely
permissive in character. At no stage the possession was hostile to the
owners of the property. The element of hostility was completely missing.
The finding rendered by the Appellate Court was, therefore, absolutely
correct and there was no occasion for the High Court, while exercising
second appellate jurisdiction, to set aside that finding. In our view, the
High Court clearly erred in accepting the Second Appeal.
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
5
10. The fact however remains that the structure was put up by the
Respondent. Pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court the
pictures of the structure have been shown to the Court. The structure is
completely dilapidated and in our view the value of the structure may not
have been more than Rs.5,000/-. However, considering the fact that the
money was spent by the Respondent in the year 1989, in our view, ends of
justice would be met if the Appellants are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards the cost of the
structure.
11. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment
and Order under Appeal to the extent it held against the Appellants on the
issue of adverse possession and we restore the Judgment and Decree dated
19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court subject to the Appellants paying
Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent within four weeks from today. The amount
shall be deposited in the Trial Court and shall be released to the
Respondent if he vacates and hands over possession of the structure to the
Appellants within two weeks after the deposit, whereafter the Respondent
shall cease to have any interest in the structure. In case he refuses to
vacate and hand over such possession, the Respondent shall not be entitled
Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019
Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh
6
to the sum so deposited and the sum could then be withdrawn by the
Appellants, who shall then be entitled to execute the decree dated
19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court.
12. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
……………..……………J.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]
………………………….J.
[Vineet Saran]
New Delhi;
November 28, 2019.
