A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolved around the legal questions of adverse possession, ownership of the suit property, and the validity of claims arising from a Joint Hindu Family property versus individual ownership under a sale deed. The plaintiff, claiming ownership of the suit property based on a registered sale deed, sought recovery of possession. The defendants contended that the property was part of a Joint Hindu Family, asserting adverse possession after a purported oral partition. The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized that adverse possession requires clear evidence of animus possidendi under hostile color of title. The court held that the defendants’ possession was permissive and failed to satisfy the legal requirements of adverse possession. Moreover, the plaintiff’s title, acquired through the sale deed, was affirmed as valid and uncontested. The High Court’s findings were upheld, dismissing the appeal.

Keywords: Adverse Possession, Joint Hindu Family Property, Animus Possidendi, Permissive Possession, Sale Deed Validity.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-3160 of 2019
• iii) Judgment Date: 14 October 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar
• vi) Author: Justice C.T. Ravikumar
• vii) Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 708
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 65); Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Contract Act, 1872; Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• x) Law Subjects: Civil Law, Property Law, Limitation, Adverse Possession, Joint Hindu Family Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute emerged from conflicting claims over a property measuring 7.60 acres in Khasra No. 867/1 at Mowa village, Raipur. The plaintiff claimed title via a registered sale deed executed in 1968. The defendants countered, alleging that the property was purchased by their father and the plaintiff’s father jointly in 1963 as part of a Joint Hindu Family, transferred later to the plaintiff’s name. Additionally, they claimed adverse possession following an oral partition in 1976. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim based on limitation but rejected the Joint Hindu Family contention. The High Court reversed these findings, decreeing in favor of the plaintiff.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in 1968 via a registered sale deed from his cousin.
2. The defendants claimed that their father, along with the plaintiff’s father, purchased the property in 1963 in their cousin’s name for the benefit of the Joint Hindu Family.
3. After the plaintiff’s father died in 1967, the property was transferred to the plaintiff’s name, but possession allegedly remained with the defendants.
4. The defendants claimed an oral partition in 1976, allotting the suit property to them.
5. The plaintiff filed the suit in 1986 for recovery of possession, claiming he was dispossessed in 1983.
6. The defendants invoked adverse possession, asserting continuous possession for over 12 years.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the suit property part of a Joint Hindu Family property, or was it owned by the plaintiff individually?
2. Did the defendants establish adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act?
3. Was the plaintiff’s suit barred by limitation?
4. Was the 1968 sale deed valid and enforceable despite allegations of benami transactions?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The defendants argued the property was purchased using Joint Hindu Family funds and held in the cousin’s name as a benami.
2. They claimed adverse possession starting from 1968, asserting hostile ownership for over 12 years.
3. They contended the plaintiff’s suit was barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the prescribed period.
4. The oral partition of 1976 allegedly settled ownership in their favor, reinforcing their claim to the property.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The plaintiff emphasized his registered ownership through the sale deed of 1968, corroborated by revenue records.
2. He refuted the defendants’ claim of adverse possession, asserting that their possession was permissive as lessees (Adhiyadar).
3. He argued that the defendants failed to prove the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or a valid oral partition.
4. The plaintiff denied the property was ever benami, asserting clear and legal transfer through the sale deed.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The plaintiff’s title through the sale deed of 1968 was upheld as valid and unchallenged by the defendants.
2. Adverse possession claims failed due to the absence of evidence proving hostile possession or animus possidendi.
3. The property was not part of a Joint Hindu Family, as the defendants could not substantiate their claim with evidence.
4. The suit was within limitation, as adverse possession could not commence before 1983, when dispossession was alleged.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. A minor can legally hold immovable property as a transferee, but not as a transferor.
2. Permissive possession cannot transform into adverse possession without clear evidence of hostility and knowledge of the true owner.

c. Guidelines

• Courts must carefully assess permissive possession versus adverse possession.
• Animus possidendi must be explicitly demonstrated to claim adverse possession.
• Benami transactions are barred under the Benami Transactions Act, 1988.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforced the principle that title through a registered sale deed prevails unless adverse possession is conclusively proven. The defendants failed to meet the evidentiary standard for hostile possession, relying instead on contradictory arguments. The ruling underscores the necessity of clear, consistent, and credible evidence in property disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Saroop Singh v. Banto (2005) 8 SCC 330
2. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) 8 SCC 729
3. M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 65)
2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
3. Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act, 1988