Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRS. vs. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (D) through LRS.
Background
This case resolved a decades-long land dispute over 3,500 sq. ft. of land (Plot No. 1019) in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Brij Narayan Shukla (through his legal representatives) claimed title and possession based on a registered sale deed dated January 21, 1966, executed by the erstwhile Zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. The land was open and vacant at the time of purchase. In 1975, when the plaintiff attempted to construct on the land, Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (through his legal representatives) objected, claiming possession since before 1944 and asserting rights through adverse possession after the abolition of Zamindari. This led to the filing of a suit for injunction and, in the alternative, for possession.
Lower Courts’ Findings
Trial Court:
The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing his ownership and possession based on the sale deed and supporting revenue records.
First Appellate Court:
Affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting the defendants’ claim of adverse possession.
Allahabad High Court:
Set aside the lower courts’ judgments, holding that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession, as they had been in continuous possession since before the abolition of Zamindari.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Permissive Possession of Tenants:
The Supreme Court emphasized that tenants’ possession is “permissive” and cannot be converted into adverse possession against the landlord or the Zamindar. Even if the defendants were in possession before 1944, their status was that of tenants, not adverse possessors.
No Adverse Possession Against Landlord:
The Court reaffirmed the settled law that a tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord, as their occupation is inherently permissive and not hostile to the owner’s title.
Zamindari Abolition Not Relevant:
The Court found that the land in question was not covered by the provisions of Zamindari Abolition, and thus, the defendants’ claim to ownership on that basis was unsustainable.
Limitation and Title:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit on limitation grounds, as there was no evidence of hostile possession or ouster of the true owner. The plaintiff’s title, based on the registered sale deed, remained valid.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the decree in favor of the plaintiff. The Court held that the plaintiff (through LRS) was entitled to possession and injunction, rejecting the defense of adverse possession by the defendants.
Significance
This judgment is a landmark affirmation that tenants cannot claim adverse possession against landlords, as their possession is always permissive. It clarifies the law on adverse possession, reinforces the sanctity of registered title deeds, and ensures that permissive occupants cannot usurp ownership merely by passage of time
RELATED Blog
0 comments