In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principles governing adverse possession, dismissing Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-60 of 2019 and upholding the High Court’s verdict in favour of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (respondent). The two-judge bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, ruled that permissive possession cannot evolve into adverse possession unless there is clear proof of hostile intent. The court also emphasized that proving adverse possession requires uninterrupted and open possession, contrary to the rightful owner’s title, for a continuous period of at least 12 years.
Background of the Case
The legal battle originated from a property dispute concerning land measuring 7.60 acres in Mowa village, Raipur. The case dates back to 1986, when Rajendra Kumar Gupta, the respondent, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land, claiming that he had acquired ownership through a registered sale deed executed in his favor by Sitaram Gupta on June 4, 1968. He alleged that the appellants, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, had wrongfully dispossessed him in July 1983.
The appellants, on the other hand, argued that the land in question was purchased by their father, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, in the name of Sitaram Gupta, a common relative, and that it was part of the joint family property. They further contended that they had been in continuous possession of the land since 1968 and claimed ownership by way of adverse possession.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Adverse Possession: The key legal issue in the case was whether the appellants could claim ownership of the land through adverse possession. According to the Limitation Act, 1963, for adverse possession to be established, possession must be continuous, hostile, and without the rightful owner’s permission for a period of at least 12 years.
2. Joint Hindu Family Property: Another significant legal question was whether the disputed land was part of a joint Hindu family property, as the appellants contended, or whether Rajendra Kumar Gupta had full ownership of the land.
3. Benami Transactions Act, 1988: The appellants also argued that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent was a benami transaction. The court had to determine the legality of the sale and whether Sitaram Gupta, who executed the sale deed, had the authority to do so.
Court’s Findings and Observations
The Supreme Court, after thoroughly examining the facts and legal arguments, found several issues with the appellants’ claims. The Court emphasized that the appellants failed to prove that their possession was hostile or adverse to the title of Rajendra Kumar Gupta. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, writing for the bench, remarked, “Permissive possession cannot morph into adverse possession without clear evidence of hostile intent. The mere act of remaining on the land does not satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession.”
The Court pointed out that the appellants themselves had submitted an application in 1981 before the Tehsildar, Raipur, admitting that they had leased the land from the respondent in 1973-1974 and were in permissive possession. This admission, the Court held, negated their claim of adverse possession.
The Court also referred to a long line of judicial precedents, including Saroop Singh v. Banto and M. Durai v. Muthu, which reaffirmed that adverse possession requires the claimant to prove a hostile intent, continuous occupation, and denial of the true owner’s title. The Court clarified that the burden of proof for adverse possession lies entirely on the party claiming it, and such possession must be “open, continuous, and without the consent of the rightful owner.”
In addressing the issue of whether the land was part of a joint Hindu family property, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent. The trial court had initially found that the land was purchased with joint family funds. However, this finding was reversed by the First Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court upheld that reversal, noting that there was insufficient evidence to establish the land as part of a joint family property.
The appellants’ argument under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, was also rejected. The Court found that the sale deed executed by Sitaram Gupta in favour of the respondent was legitimate and not a benami transaction.
The Verdict
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s order, directing the appellants to hand over possession of the land to the respondent. The Court further ruled that the appellants’ attempt to claim adverse possession was legally untenable due to their prior admission of permissive possession.
The Court also closed the contempt petition (No. 517-518 of 2020) filed by the respondent, arising out of the status quo orders passed during the pendency of the appeal. With the dismissal of the appeals, the Court noted that the respondent was now entitled to execute the decree for possession.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors. vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
– Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-60 of 2019
– Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
– Lawyers: Senior Counsel Rajiv Singh for the appellants; Advocate Sandeep Sharma for the respondent
