BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. V. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Citation: 2024 (SC) 17
FACTS: 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.
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 (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.
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. The defendant respondents having continued in possession at the time of abolition of Zamindari, became the owners. 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, 1973 in May, 1966. In the said proceedings, it was found that the defendant respondents were in possession.
ISSUE: whether tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords?
The Supreme Court observed that tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal was deciding an appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the suit for ownership/possession as time-barred.
The Supreme Court observed: "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."
The Court added “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 before 1966."
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff - appellant by maintaining the status-quo on the judgement passed by the First Appellate Court for decreeing the suit for possession that 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.
