In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has reiterated the right of a plaintiff to seek a declaration of title based on the principle of adverse possession. The decision, handed down by the Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, challenged the findings of the High Court, emphasizing the established legal stance that allows a plaintiff to pursue a title declaration through adverse possession.
The judicial clarification arose from the reference to the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur, where the court previously affirmed the plaintiff’s entitlement to declare ownership through adverse possession. The present case involved appellants who were the original plaintiffs seeking title declaration and permanent injunction based on adverse possession, aiming to prevent the defendants from forcibly taking possession of the disputed land.
The plaintiff argued a continuous possession of the land from 1957 to 1981, acquired through a sale for a sum less than Rs. 100, which exempted the transaction from the requirement of registration. This formed the basis for the plaintiff’s claim of ownership through adverse possession. Conversely, the defendant contended that the sale deed could not be executed without his consent, as he was a co-sharer in the property.
The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, a decision upheld by the appellate court, maintaining the status quo. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, overturned these decisions, asserting that the plea of adverse possession was applicable only to the defendant, not the plaintiff.
The High Court’s rationale centered on the perceived absence of justifiable reasons for the plaintiff to invoke adverse possession, deeming the suit for declaration on this basis as not maintainable. The court concluded that the plea of adverse possession is a defense available to the defendant against the plaintiff, not vice versa. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous judgments and decrees, dismissing the suit and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Challenging the High Court’s order, the appellant plaintiff brought the case to the Supreme Court. After a thorough examination of the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s perspective and, citing its previous ruling on the matter, set aside the judgment and order. The court upheld the right of the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title through adverse possession, concluding that the appeal was justified, and the suits were allowed.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
