- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. v. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS .
Supreme Court of India: Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012 (2024 INSC 9)
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns 3,500 sq. ft. of land forming part of Plot No. 1019 in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff purchased this open land from the erstwhile zamindar, Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal, through a registered sale deed dated 21 January 1966 and claimed to have received possession. In 1975, when the plaintiff attempted to construct on the land, the defendants objected, prompting the suit (O.S. No. 161 of 1975) filed on 28 May 1975 seeking an injunction and, in the alternative, possession.
The Trial Court decreed the suit for injunction on 19 September 1979, recognising the plaintiff’s title and possession. On appeal (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1979), the District Judge affirmed title but, finding that the defendants were in possession, modified the decree to one for possession. The defendants then filed Second Appeal No. 202 of 1980 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, which on 15 May 2012 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit as time-barred, holding that the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession since 1944.
The plaintiff’s legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present judgment delivered on 3 January 2024.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s suit filed in 1975 was barred by limitation on the ground that the defendants had perfected title to the land by adverse possession commencing in 1944.
- Whether the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, erred in re-appreciating findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
- Whether the defendants could claim ownership based on tenancy and subsequent abolition of zamindari with respect to the suit land.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff/Appellant
- Relied on the registered sale deed dated 21 January 1966, mutation entries, and khasra/khewat records to establish title.
- Asserted that any cause of action and computation of limitation could only begin after the 1966 sale deed; the suit filed in 1975 was therefore within 12 years.
- Contended that the land is non-agricultural and thus not affected by zamindari abolition.
Defendant/Respondent
- Claimed prior proceedings in 1944 for arrears of rent regarding Plot Nos. 1019, 1022, and 1023, asserting continuous possession since then.
- Argued that, following abolition of zamindari, their continued possession ripened into ownership.
- Pointed to Section 145 CrPC proceedings of May 1966, alleging the Magistrate found them to be in possession of the disputed land.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court identified serious errors in the High Court’s approach:
- The High Court failed to consider or overturn specific concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on limitation and possession.
- In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence and disturb findings of fact unless a substantial question of law was involved; it nonetheless undertook a factual re-assessment.
- The 1944 suit concerned arrears of rent; the defendants’ possession at that time was permissive as tenants, not adverse. Consequently, adverse possession could not commence in 1944.
- The First Appellate Court had found the suit land to be non-agricultural, thereby negating any claim of statutory ownership upon abolition of zamindari—a finding left undisturbed by the High Court.
- Given the sale deed of 21 January 1966, any adverse possession would have to be tested from that date forward. The plaintiff’s 1975 suit was therefore filed well within the 12-year limitation period.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside; decree of First Appellate Court restoring possession to the plaintiff reinstated.
Immediate consequence: the plaintiff’s legal representatives regain entitlement to possession of the disputed land, and the defendants’ claim of adverse possession is rejected. The Supreme Court reiterates limitations on High Courts under Section 100 CPC when interfering with concurrent findings of fact; however, the ruling does not lay down a new legal precedent beyond applying established principles to the case’s specific facts.
2024 INSC 9
Civil Appeal No.7502 of 2012 Page 1 of 9
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012
BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D)
THR. LRS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS
SURESH KUMAR (D)
THR. LRS. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The plaintiff is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing Second Appeal No.202 of 1980, Sudesh Kumar and others vs. Brij Narayan Shukla and others, whereby, both the judgments of the First Appeal Court and the Trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff appellant
1
was dismissed on the ground of limitation being barred by time.
2. Dispute relates to an area of 3500 sq. ft. (70 ft. x 50 ft.) (2 Biswa 12 Biswani) of Plot No.1019 situated in Village Hardoi within the limits of Nagar Palika Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from the erstwhile Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. They also claimed to have received possession pursuant to the sale deed. It is also relevant to mention that the land purchased was an open piece of land. In 1975, when the appellant tried to raise the construction over the land purchased, the defendants objected and caused hindrance giving rise to the filing of the suit in question on 28.05.1975, registered as O.S.No.161 of 1975 praying for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession.
3. The defendant respondent filed their written statement primarily alleging that there had been prior proceedings between Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants
2
(ancestors of the respondent) in the year 1944 where a suit was filed for arrears of rent with respect to Plot No.1019, 1022 and 1023.
3.1 Further under the settlement between the Zamindar and co-sharers, the land in question came to Siddheshwari Narain and Deep Chandra in a private partition and as such these co- sharers became the owners of the land.
3.2 The defendant respondents having continued in possession at the time of abolition of Zamindari, became the owners.
3.3 Lastly, it was contended that soon after the sale deed of January, 1966 in favour of plaintiff appellant, there was proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731in May, 1966. In the said proceedings, it was found that the defendant respondents were in possession.
1 CrPC
3
4. Both the parties led evidence, both documentary and oral. The Trial Court found the plaintiff appellant to be the owner of the land in dispute as also in possession and accordingly decreed the suit for injunction vide judgment dated
19.09.1979.
5. The Trial Court had placed reliance upon the sale deed, the Mutation and the Khasra and Khewat entries. Further, the Trial Court had held that the proceedings under section 145 CrPC would not be of any benefit to the defendant respondents as it was not clear from the material placed that the said proceedings related to the land in question.
6. The defendant respondent preferred appeal before the District Judge which was registered as Civil Appeal No.14 of 1979. The District Judge, Hardoi, vide judgment dated 29.11.1979 dismissed the appeal. It however did not agree with a couple of findings recorded by the Trial Court and accordingly, recorded its own findings. According to the appellate court, the proceedings under section 145 CrPC were related to the land
4
in dispute and that the possession of the defendant respondent was found over the land in dispute. It accordingly decreed the suit for possession and not for injunction as had been done by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court further held that the plaintiff-appellants were the owners of the land in dispute and they had been successful in establishing their title.
7. Another finding recorded by the Appellate Court was that the land in dispute was a non- agricultural land and there was no question of abolition of Zamindari with respect to the said land and therefore the claim of the defendants of becoming the owners on the abolition of Zamindari was not correct. It further found that the suit for arrears of rent filed in 1944 was with respect to some other land and not the land in dispute in as much as the suit land was vacant open piece of land whereas the 1944 suit for arrears of rent was with respect to the house of the defendants. Even the plot areas in the two suits were different. The Plot No.1019 being a huge piece of land where as the plaintiff appellant
5
had purchased only a part of it, they had derived valid title from the Zamindars, the erstwhile owners.
8. It accordingly held that the period of 12 years for perfecting rights on the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time.
9. The defendant respondent preferred Second Appeal before the High Court which was registered as Second Appeal No.202 of 1980. It is this appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment giving rise to the present appeal. The High Court dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground of limitation as according to it, the defendant respondent had matured their rights or rather perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed. We are, however, of the firm view that the High Court fell in serious error in holding so, for the following reasons:
6
9.1 It has not dealt with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appeal Court with respect to the issue of Limitation and the evidence considered by them.
9.2 The High Court was hearing the Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082and it having reappreciated the findings to disturb findings of fact, committed an error.
9.3 The High Court has not recorded any finding that the plaintiff appellants were not the owners or that they have failed to prove the ownership.
9.4 The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944.
2 CPC
7
9.5 In our considered view, the plaintiff appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966. The dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior to it. Admittedly from the date of the sale deed, the suit was filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975. Even if it is assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse. There were no proceedings for possession prior to 1966.
9.6 Further, the first appellate court having recorded a specific finding that the land in suit was not covered by Zamindari Abolition as it was non- agricultural land, the claim of ownership from the date of abolition of Zamindari was also without any merit. The finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. The defendant- respondents thus having failed to establish their
8
title, would have no right to retain the possession.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession is maintained.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 03, 2024
9
Alert