‘A’ a person by a family settlement was declared the owner of the property under his possession with consent of all the family members, later on one of the family member challenged the ownership. Will ‘A’ be entitled to ownership by taking the plea of adverse possession?
Ravinder Kaur Grewal
Vs.
Manjit Kaur
31st July, 2020
FACTS
- The suit was filed by Mr. Harbans Singh (Original plaintiff) against his real brothers, Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh for a declaration that he has an exclusive ownership in suit land and other properties as mentioned. He contended that there was a family settlement with the involvement of all the persons and members of the family, where his ownership and possession in respect of the land including the construction was accepted and acknowledged.
- It was stated that in 1970, after the purchase of suit land, some disputes arose between the brothers regarding the suit land and the family settlement and it was clarified that the plaintiff could be the owner of the properties and the names of brothers would respectively, continue to exist in the revenue record as the owner to the extent of half-share and the plaintiff would not dissent in that regard due to the close relationship between the parties.
- The Defendants posed disputes claiming half-share in respect of which the plaintiff was accepted to be the exclusive owner and as a result of which it was decided to prepare a Memorandum of family settlement incorporating the terms already settled between the parties. The stated memorandum was executed by all parties on 10-03-1988. After execution of the memo of the family settlement, the defendants once again raised new issues from the family arrangements.
- As a result, plaintiff decided to file a suit for declaration in May 1988, praying that he was the owner of possession of the land. An alternative plea was also taken that since plaintiff was in possession of the whole suit property to the knowledge of the defendants for the period more than twelve years. Hence, he has acquired ownership right by way of adverse possession.
- The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement. They denied the particulars contented by the plaintiff.
HELD
Trail court
The suit of the plaintiff was partly allowed and partly denied. His suit was decreed partly to the extent that he was declared to be the owner in possession of two parts and construction. Feeling aggrieved from the decision of the trail court the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District judge. The court declared the original plaintiff as owner of the suit land along with construction including sixteen shops, a service station and boundary wall with Samadhi in land.
High court
The high court set aside the decree passed by the District Judge and opined that the documents on which he has no legal pre-existing rights would require registration. The second appeal was allowed and the judgment decree passed by the lower appellant court was set aside, thereby restoring the decree passed by the trail court.
The Appellant (Ravinder Kaur) questions the correctness of the decision of the High court. The matter was then transferred to larger bench of three judges to answer the question as to whether the acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by the plaintiff under Article 65 of the limitation Act, 1963 and is there any bar under the limitation Act to sue on the basis of infringement of any right of plaintiff. The larger bench of three judges answered the question in favor of the plaintiff.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside the decree or judgment passed by High Court and restored the judgment passed by first appellant authority in favor of the plaintiff. The court, thus allowed the appeal.