Adverse Possession Unavailable for Tenant Against Landlord Due to Permissive Possession: Supreme Court
Case Title: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012
Decided on: 3rd January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Facts of the Case
The matter revolved around a disagreement concerning Plot No. 1019 in Village Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. Brij Narayan Shukla, the appellant (now deceased), was represented by his legal heirs, who asserted ownership of the land. They relied on a sale deed dated January 21, 1966, obtained from the former Zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. The dispute escalated in 1975 when the appellant encountered opposition from the respondents while attempting construction. The respondents contested the ownership claim, arguing that they had acquired the land through adverse possession dating back to 1944. The appellant initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit seeking an injunction and relief for possession.
The appellant’s suit was rejected by the Allahabad High Court, citing the limitation ground. This decision was based on the respondent having solidified their rights through adverse possession, a status they maintained since the initiation of the first suit for arrears of rent.
Issue
The case involves a dispute over ownership and possession of Plot No. 1019 in Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Provision
Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, are for the purpose of preventing breach of peace. What the executive Magistrate is required to do is to find out who was in possession on the date or two months prior to the drawing of the preliminary order.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Allahabad High Court, which had permitted a suit for claiming rights through adverse possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that ownership and possession of land cannot be established through permissive possession arising from tenancy. Furthermore, the court asserted that asserting adverse possession in this particular context was not a viable option. In a statement, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted, “Even if we assume that the defendant respondents were in possession before 1944, their possession could not be deemed adverse, as they were tenants, and their tenancy would be considered permissible rather than adverse, even to the Zamindars.”
Disagreeing with the High Court’s conclusions and highlighting the lack of findings on limitation and adverse possession, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s ownership based on the 1966 sale deed. The Court dismissed the High Court’s rationale and, as a result, granted approval to the appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad