In Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs v. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (D) through LRs & Ors., the Supreme Court held that possession which originated as tenancy cannot be treated as adverse possession merely because it continued for a long period. The Court restored a decree for possession in favour of the purchaser of the property and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment which had dismissed the suit on limitation grounds.
The Dispute The case concerned a plot measuring 3,500 square feet situated in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff had purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 21 January 1966 from the erstwhile Zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. According to the plaintiff, possession of the land was also delivered pursuant to the sale deed. The dispute surfaced in 1975 when the plaintiff attempted to raise construction over the land and was obstructed by the defendants. This led to the institution of a civil suit seeking permanent injunction and, alternatively, recovery of possession. Defendants' Stand The defendants claimed that their predecessors had been occupying the property since before 1944 and relied upon earlier rent proceedings involving the Zamindar. They further contended that: •They had become owners upon abolition of the Zamindari system; •Their possession had continued uninterrupted for decades; •They had perfected title by adverse possession; and •Proceedings under Section 145 CrPC in 1966 had recognised their possession over the land.
Findings of the Courts Below The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's claim and held that he had established both title and possession over the disputed property. On appeal, the First Appellate Court agreed that the plaintiff had successfully proved ownership through the registered sale deed. However, it found that the defendants were in actual possession of the property and consequently modified the decree by granting possession instead of injunction. The First Appellate Court also held that: •The land was non-agricultural in nature; •The defendants could not claim ownership through Zamindari abolition laws; •The plaintiff had acquired valid title through the sale deed of 1966; and •The suit filed in 1975 was well within the limitation period.High Court Reverses the Decree The Allahabad High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below. The High Court held that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession and treated their possession as running from 1944. On that basis, it dismissed the plaintiff's suit as time-barred.
What the Supreme Court Said The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to be legally unsustainable. The Court observed that the High Court had effectively re-appreciated evidence and disturbed concurrent findings of fact while exercising second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The Court emphasised that the defendants' possession prior to 1966 was admittedly as tenants under the Zamindar. Such possession was permissive and could not be treated as hostile to the owner's title. According to the Court, a claim of adverse possession requires a clear assertion hostile to the true owner. Mere long possession is not sufficient. The Court observed that: A tenant's possession remains permissive in nature and cannot automatically ripen into adverse possession unless there is a clear and hostile assertion against the owner's title. The Supreme Court further noted that the plaintiff acquired ownership only on 21 January 1966 through the registered sale deed. Therefore, any question regarding adverse possession against the plaintiff could arise only after that date. Since the suit was instituted in 1975, it was clearly filed within twelve years from the date the plaintiff acquired title. Supreme Court Restores Possession Decree Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and restored the decree passed by the First Appellate Court granting possession in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendants had failed to establish any independent title over the property and could not rely on adverse possession based on a period during which their occupation was merely permissive as tenants.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates two important principles: •Possession originating as tenancy cannot become adverse possession unless there is a clear and hostile denial of the landlord's title. •A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC cannot overturn concurrent findings of fact by re-appreciating evidence unless a substantial question of law arises.
