Long continuous possession by itself cannot be termed as adverse possession

Shri Uttam Chand vs Nathu Ram Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2020

Facts-

In this present case, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property which he purchased from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have unauthorized possession of the property and has refused to vacate the property. 

On the other hand, in the written statement the defendants denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and asserted that their house existed on the property for more than the last two centuries.

Defendants denied that the property was ever vested with the Managing Officer and, therefore, it was claimed that the Managing Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to auction the property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has no interest, right or title in the property.

Issues-

• Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee & Jurisdiction?
• Whether the suit is time barred?
• Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit? 
• Whether the defendants become owner by adverse possession of the property in suit?
• Whether the defendants are in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute?

Judgement –

In the second appeal,  the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the defendants lived in an open, uninterrupted, peace, and hostile possession for a total period of 12 years. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff on was barred by limitation.

The Supreme Court referred to the Case of LRs vs. Mahant Suresh Das (known as the Ayodhya Case) in which it was observed that if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession hostile to the plaintiff’s title will not be sufficient.

In the present case, the bench viewed that the defendants have not admitted the vesting of the suit with the managing officer and the factum of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in the present case has not only denied the title to the managing officer but also the plaintiff. The plea of the defendants is a continuous possession but there was no plea stating that possession was hostile to the true owner. The evidence is that of continuous possession. 

The court concluded that the defendant has perfected their title by adverse possession are not legally fit are set aside and the suit to the present matter is decreed.