A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012, the Supreme Court addressed the question of adverse possession, examining whether the High Court erred in dismissing a suit on limitation grounds. The appellant, holding title via a registered sale deed from 1966, sought an injunction or possession of land alleged to have been wrongfully possessed by the respondent since 1944. The High Court dismissed the suit, asserting the respondent’s rights through adverse possession. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this, ruling that possession prior to 1966 could not be adverse due to the tenant’s permissive possession under the Zamindars. Further, the Court found that the land in dispute was not subject to Zamindari Abolition, reinforcing the appellant’s title. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court, decreeing possession for the appellant.

Keywords: Adverse Possession, Title, Injunction, Permissive Possession, Zamindari Abolition

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
• Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012
• Judgment Date: 3 January 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
• Author: Justice Vikram Nath
• Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 60 : 2024 INSC 9
• Legal Provisions Involved: Limitation Act, Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Case is Related to Law Subjects: Property Law, Civil Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case centers on property rights, specifically the contest between lawful ownership and claims of adverse possession. The appellant’s title over the land, evidenced by a registered sale deed from 1966, was contested by the respondent, who asserted continuous possession from 1944. The dispute arose when the appellant sought to assert their ownership by initiating construction in 1975, leading to objections from the respondent. The suit filed in 1975 sought either an injunction or, alternatively, possession. The High Court dismissed this suit on limitation grounds, finding in favor of the respondent’s adverse possession claim. The Supreme Court, however, scrutinized the permissive nature of possession pre-1966, reaffirming the appellant’s ownership and right to possession.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The disputed property covers 3500 sq. ft. within Village Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, purchased by the appellant in 1966. Although the land was vacant, the appellant’s possession was interrupted when they attempted construction in 1975, prompting the respondent’s objections. The respondents based their claim on continuous occupancy since 1944, alleging ownership due to adverse possession. The trial court initially upheld the appellant’s title and decreed an injunction, while the first appellate court revised the relief to possession. The High Court, in contrast, upheld the respondent’s adverse possession, dismissing the suit as time-barred.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Did the respondents acquire ownership through adverse possession?
2. Was the suit filed by the appellant within the limitation period?
3. Does permissive possession of tenants prevent the claim of adverse possession?
4. Does the abolition of Zamindari impact the ownership rights of the parties?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant contended that their title originated from a registered sale deed in 1966, a lawful transfer from the original Zamindar. They argued that the respondent’s possession prior to this date was permissive as a tenant, precluding any adverse possession claim. They cited the permissive nature of occupancy, asserting that any claim by the respondent could only start in 1966, making the suit timely within the 12-year limitation period. Additionally, they argued that the land’s classification as non-agricultural exempted it from Zamindari Abolition, maintaining their title and ownership.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents argued that they had continuously possessed the land since 1944, entitling them to adverse possession rights. They contended that following Zamindari Abolition, they held ownership as the possessors, thereby nullifying the appellant’s claim to title. The respondents also referenced proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC in 1966, which had recognized their possession, arguing this as further evidence of their right to retain the property.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Limitation Act – Governing adverse possession and limitations on property suits.
2. Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure – Concerning disputes over possession of property.
3. Code of Civil Procedure – Relevant to procedural aspects of appeals and findings.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s possession, being permissive before 1966, could not support adverse possession. The Court found that the limitation period would start from the appellant’s acquisition of title in 1966. Hence, the suit filed in 1975 was within the permissible period. The land’s non-agricultural status also meant it was unaffected by Zamindari Abolition, invalidating the respondent’s claim to ownership. The High Court’s decision was reversed, and the First Appellate Court’s decree for possession was reinstated.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that appellate intervention in factual findings under Second Appeal was not justified without clear error, underscoring limitations on re-evaluation in higher appeals under Section 100 of the CPC.

c. GUIDELINES

The Court outlined the parameters for determining adverse possession, especially regarding the distinction between permissive and hostile possession. It emphasized:

• Starting point for adverse possession: Should follow a lawful transfer of title, not predating it.
• Permissive possession of tenants: Does not transform into adverse possession without clear hostile actions.
• Interpretation of Zamindari Abolition: Limited to agricultural lands, not applicable to non-agricultural properties.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces critical distinctions between permissive and adverse possession, particularly for tenanted properties. By limiting adverse possession claims to post-title periods and exempting non-agricultural land from Zamindari Abolition, the ruling clarifies ownership rights in similar cases. It also emphasizes appellate courts’

limitations in re-evaluating findings of fact, reserving this power for clear errors.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. L.N. Aswathama & Anr. v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229
2. Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 330
3. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 779

Important Statutes Referred

1. Limitation Act
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 145
3. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100