Legal heirs of a plaintiff who claimed title by adverse possession over property challenged concurrent findings against them. The High Court found the plaintiff's own pleadings showed the owner's intervention before the statutory period elapsed and held no substantial question of law arose; the appeal was dismissed without admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024/24TH PHALGUNA, 1945
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2023 IN AS NO.34 OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-VIII,
ERNAKULAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2015
IN OS NO.127 OF 2008 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 AND LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL
PLAINTIFF:
3 SHAREENA BEEVI A.R AGED 46 YEARS D/O. ABDUL RASHEED, C.C 1/431, BURGER STREET, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682001
4 SHAFEENA A.R, AGED 43 YEARS D/O. ABDUL RASHEED, C.C 1/431, BURGER STREET, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682001
5 SHAMEENA A.R AGED 42 YEARS D/O. ABDUL RASHEED, C.C 1/431,
2
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
BURGER STREET, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER S.PARVATHI UTHARA ASOKAN T.K.SREEKALA ATHIRA PRASAD SAQIB RIZWAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AND 6 TO
11/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 AND 6 TO 11:
1 NIXON XAVIOR S/O. XAVIOR, AGED 55 YEARS, CHATHANATTVEETTIL, C.C. 3/534, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
2 P.K. KUNJUMON S/O. KUNJUMOHAMMED, AGED 74 YEARS, PARUCHETHIL HOUSE, DOOR NO.23/579-B, K.M.P. NAGAR, PALLURUTHY P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682006
3 ABEL ANTONY ROBERT S/O. ROBERT BASTIN, AGED 82 YEARS, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
4 MEENA ARCHIBOLD ROBERT W/O. ARCHIBOLD ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
3
S/O. ARCHIBOLD ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
6 SMITHA ARCHIBOLD ROBERT D/O. ARCHIBOLD ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002 7 SWAPNA ARCHIBOLD ROBERT D/O. ARCHIBOLD ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002 8 VINOD SEBASTIN ROBERT S/O. SEBASTIAN ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
9 PRAMOD SEBASTIAN ROBERT , S/O. SEBASTIAN ROBERT, POLLEPARABIL HOUSE, C.C. 1/54, FORT VYPIN, VYPIN ISLAND, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEAD ON 05.03.2024, THE COURT ON 14.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2024
This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the decree and judgment dated 25.08.2023 in A.S.No.34/2016 on the files of the Additional District Court-VIII, Ernakulam, arose out of the decree and judgment dated 11.11.2015 in O.S.No.127/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Kochi. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, A.Abdul Rasheed. Respondents are the defendants in the suit.
admission. Perused copy of plaint and copies of relevant exhibits placed by the learned counsel for the appellants.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
5
seeking a declaration that he perfected title by prescription of the plaint schedule property by virtue of adverse possession and limitation and also for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from forcefully dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. The plaint averments in paragraph Nos.1 to 5 are extracted hereunder:
“1. Deceased P.B.Robert was the owner of the plaint schedule properties having acquired the same as per Sale Deed No. 62/1950 of SRO, Kochi. The said P.B.Robert died intestate. To the knowledge of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 who is the legal heir of deceased P.B.Robert obtained the plaint schedule properties after the death of the said P.B.Robert on 21-01-1957.
2. On 12-04-1984, a portion of the building in the plaint schedule property fell down. The Plaintiff thereupon entered the plaint schedule property, assumed possession thereof without consent or intervention from anyone else including the real owner. The Plaintiff soon
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
6
reconstructed the said building and the same was numbered as 1/199, 1/200 and later it is numbered as 1/431 and 1/432. The Defendant had prompt notice of such wrongful entry and unlawful possession assumed by the plaintiff. However, at all material times such overt conduct on the part of the plaintiff both in the matter of the entry as also the possession assumed besides the constructions carried out went un-protested by anyone whomsoever including in particular the real owner. After construction as aforesaid, the Plaintiff setup his residence in the upstair portion of the building. He also started a business in the shop room in the ground floor. Later, the Plaintiff created a mortgage in respect of a portion of the building to various persons viz. Subaida, K.G.Francis, Norman Roberraw, Lilly Ludwick and C.D.Xavier etc. during successive periods viz. 1989,1990,1998 and 2000. As submitted above, all these facts were well known to the defendants. But they neglected and failed to take any action against the Plaintiff to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the Plaintiff.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
7
3. In the year 1991, the legal heirs of deceased P.B.Robert secretly created a Partition Deed registered as Document No.3049/1991 of SRO, Kuthiathode concerning division of properties of late Robert. Schedule A there under was set apart for the 1st defendant. The plaint schedule property constituted item no. 4 in Schedule A. While describing the plaint schedule property in the said Partition Deed some apparent errors have crept in concerning the extent, SubDivision No. and desom as that of Sale Deed No. 62/1950. It appears that Defendants 2 and 3 purportedly purchased the plaint schedule property subsequently.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the plaint schedule properties has been in the continuous and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff ever since 12-4-1984. Such possession of the plaintiff was open, public and peaceful to the exclusion of the real owner. Such possession was hostile and adverse to that of the real owner. By virtue of the long possession and enjoyment in the manner aforesaid, the Plaintiff perfected his title to the property. Applying the principles of adverse possession and limitation,
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
8
the plaintiff has become vested with absolute ownership over the plaint schedule property.
5. The plaintiff humbly submits that in January 1992 the 1st defendant approached the Plaintiff with request to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The request was then and there openly defied by the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant did not budge an inch to initiate any legal steps to recover possession of the property even at that point of time. While so, in due course of time, Defendant Nos: 1 to 3 fully conscious of the factum of possession remaining with the plaintiff, created several conveyances viz. Sale Deed No. 1862/1998 of SRO, Kuthiathode in favour of one D.X.Sebastian, who is now no more and Sale Deed No. 5611/2005 and Rectification Deed No. 5816/2005 of SRO, Kochi in favour of one Nixon Xavier, a relative of the 1st defendant purportedly transferring an extent of 5 cents and the building thereon forming part of the plaint schedule property. As a matter of fact, the actual extent of the plaint schedule property is 5.830 cents where there is a two storied building. It was an attempt to mislead the
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
9
authorities to suppress the factum of the possession of the property vested with the plaintiff. Yet another attempt was made by the 1st Defendant in the year 2006 by purportedly creating a conveyance in favour of the 3rd Defendant as per Sale Deed No. 5868/2008 of SRO, Kochi. The 3rd Defendant thereafter changed the assessment of the building in the records of the Corporation of Cochin in his name and made remittance of property tax concerning the building. However till date mutation of the land or any part of the plaint schedule property has not been carried out and it still remains in the name of late P.B.Robert.”
the specific case of the plaintiff, in tune with the averments in paragraph Nos.1 to 5, is that he has perfected title by adverse possession over the plaint schedule property. The first defendant did not appear on summons and he was set
ex parte . The 2nd defendant filed written statement contending that building No.CC1/431 is owned by the 1st
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
10
defendant and the plaintiff is only a tenant. In the year 1980, the plaintiff purchased building No.1/1659 and 1/1660 adjacent to house No.1/1658, in which he is residing permanently, in the name of his wife, and he is continuing in the said address. The 2nd defendant purchased the plaint schedule property on 07.02.2005 from D.X.Sebastian as per sale deed No.5816/2005 and he is the owner of the property. He effected mutation and has been paying basic tax and property tax. The 2nd defendant sold the property to the 3rd defendant on 04.12.2006 as per sale deed No.5858/2006. The sale was intimated to the tenant. The extent of the plaint schedule property is wrongly mentioned in the plaint. The same was only 5 cents as per the village records. After the death of P.B.Robert on 21.01.1957, his large extent of properties at different places, including the plaint schedule property, devolved upon his wife and children. He was survived by his wife, Annakutty Robert and 3 children, viz., Archibold Robert, Abel Antony Robert and Sebastian Robert.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
11
The permanent address of the plaintiff is 1/1658 at Kunnumpuram. He had purchased the adjacent buildings in the year 1980. The plaintiff never created any mortgage in respect of the property. The allegation that the legal heirs of the late Robert created partition deed secretly in 1991 was denied. The first defendant obtained ownership of the property in 1991 as per the partition deed. The claim that the plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession of the property from 1984 and he had perfected his title over the same by adverse possession and limitation were denied. The claim that the 1st defendant demanded vacant possession in 1992 also was not correct. The plaintiff was put in possession of the property as a tenant in 1990. It was contended further that the plaintiff is only a tenant in the building and he is not entitled to any declaration or injunction against the true owner.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
12
examined and Exts.A1 to A78 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defendants. Exts.B1 and B53 were marked on the side of the defendants. Ext.C1, C1(a) and C2 and Exts.X1 to X5 were also marked.
“On perusal of Ext.B33 partition deed it is seen that it is specifically mentioned in that partition deed that the property covered by Ext.B26 sale deed in favour of P.B.Robert which is the plaint scheduled property herein was also included for partition and that property "allotted to Archibold Robert and in the document executed in favour of Sebastian it is specifically. mentioned that Archibold Robert has sold the property obtained by him as per the Ext.B37 partition deed and devolved upon him by intestate succession after
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
13
the death of P.B.Robert and Sebastian has sold said property to Nixon Xavier. Later Nixon Xavier has sold the property to one P.K.Kunjumon, the 3rd defendant by correcting the survey Number as 67/10 after obtaining a certificate from the Village Officer stating that the correct survey number of the property belonged to P.B.Robert as per Ext.B26 is 67/10 and not 67/1 and on the basis of that certificate Nixon Xavier has sold the property obtained by him as per the sale deed in his favour executed by Sebastian. Even though a mistake in the survey number has been crept in the schedule of the property partitioned as per Ext.B33 partition deed, from the recitals in Ext.B33 it is seen that the plaint schedule property obtained from P.B.Robert has been allotted to Archibold Robert and he had sold the said property to Sebastian and thereafter, Sebastian sold the same to Nixon Xavier. So all those records would reveal that the plaint schedule property belonged to P.B.Robert has been transferred to Archibold Robert and thereafter to the defendants 2 and 3 and hence they have got right and title to the said property. Hence issue No.8 is found accordingly.”
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
14
the learned additional District Judge also confirmed the said finding.
1992, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff with a request to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and the said request was then and there openly defied by the plaintiff. Thus, going by the admitted case of the plaintiff in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the plaint, it is evident that before completing 12 years period necessary to perfect title by adverse possession, with 'hostile animus' as mandated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, during 1992 i.e., 8 years after 12.04.1984, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff and requested to surrender the vacant
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
15
possession of the building. If so the admission of the plaintiff in the plaint itself shows intervention of the owner, during possession of the plaint schedule property before 12 years and the same itself would defeat plea of adverse possession.
“ 12. When addressing the requirements of adverse possession, the classical requirements of adverse possession are; nec vi, nec clam and nec precario, that it should be peaceful, open and continuous. (1) nec vi means neither by force. If the rightful owner of the property is constantly visiting the property, trying to get back possession, but the adverse possessor is throwing him out and is maintaining his wrongful possession by force, then his adverse possession does not begin. (2) nec clam means neither secretly. If the
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
16
possession of the wrongful occupier is a guarded secret, and the legal owner cannot be reasonably expected to know of the fact of the loss of possession to the wrongful occupier, then also adverse possession does not begin. (3) nec precario means neither licence or permission. Since the concept of adverse possession is nec vi nec clam nec precario, there must in the first instance be actual possession and secondly there must be open hostile animus; possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that his possession is adverse to the competitor. It is the intention to claim adversely accompanied by such an invasion of the rights of the opposite party as gives him a cause of action which constitutes adverse possession. Consonant with this principle the commencement of adverse possession in favour of a person, implies that that person is in actual possession, at the time with a notorious hostile claim of exclusive title, to repal which, the true owner would then be in a position to maintain an action. It would follow
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
17
that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession, his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the requisite animus. The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It must be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued for over the statutory period. The hostile character of the possession is gauged by the animus of the person setting up adverse possession. The question of animus is a question of personal equation of the prescriber and not that of the person whose title is sought to be acquired. Thus, where a person was found to be in possession on behalf of another, notwithstanding that the latter admitted the farmer's possession to be on his own account, it could be held that the former's possession was only on the latter's behalf and not adverse to him. The animus of the prescriber alone determines the nature and quantum of the estate that is being
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
18
prescribed. Adverse possession depends on intention of the occupant to claim and hold the land in opposition to the whole world and also embodies the idea that the owner or persons interested in the property have knowledge of the assertion of ownership by the occupant. Adverse possession consists of actual possession with intent to hold solely by the possessor to the exclusion of all others.”
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
19
evidence of PW2, the Village Officer, Fort Kochi, who produced Exts.X1 and X2 documents. Ext.X1 is the document containing details of property having an extent of 6 cents in Sy.No.67/10 and Ext.X2 is the document having an extent of 5 cents in Sy.No.67/1. Ext.X2 is the extract of the Thandaperu Kanakka Register and the same would show that the land in Sy.No.67/1 is in the possession of the 3rd defendant and as per Ext.X3, copy of Thandaperu Kanakka Register, the properties in Sy.No.67/10 are in the name of P.B.Robert.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
20
relative of the 1st defendant, purportedly transferring 5 cents of property and building thereon form part of the plaint schedule property. Further, it is contended that in the year 2006, the 1st defendant created conveyance deed in favour of the 3rd defendant as per sale deed No.5868/2006 of SRO, Kochi (Ext.B17) and thereafter, changed the assessment of the building in the record of the Corporation of Cochin in his name and made remittance of property tax concerned in the building.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
21
2008, in continuation of his predecessors, including the 1st defendant.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
22
“2. Power of Court to direct that the appeal be heard on the question formulated by it. - At the time of making an order under rule 11 of Order XLI for the hearing of a second appeal, the Court shall formulate the substantial question of law as required by section 100, and in doing so, the Court may direct that the second appeal be heard on the question so formulated and it shall not be open to the appellant to urge any other ground in the appeal without the leave of the Court, given in accordance with the provision of section 100.”
18. Section 100 of the C.P.C. provides that, (1) Save
as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An Appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
23
substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question. Proviso says that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.
and Others reported in [2020 KHC 6507 : AIR 2020 SC 4321 : 2020 (10) SCALE 168] , the Apex Court held that:
The condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a second appeal being the existence of a substantial question of law, whenever a question is framed by the High Court, the High Court will have to show that the question is one
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
24
of law and not just a question of facts, it also has to show that the question is a substantial question of law referring Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, [(1999) 3 SCC 722] .
For an appeal to be maintainable under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC', for brevity) it must fulfill certain well – established requirements. The primary and most important of them all is that the appeal should pose a substantial question of law. The sort of question that qualifies this criterion has been time and again reiterated by this Court.
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
25
under Section 100 of the C.P.C., the Court shall formulate substantial question/s of law, and the said procedure is mandatory. Although the phrase 'substantial question of law' is not defined in the Code, 'substantial question of law' means; of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with – technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as S.109 of the Code or Art.133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. As such, second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds and the conditions mentioned in Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. must be complied to admit and maintain
RSA NO. 11 OF 2024
26
a second appeal.
of law arises in this matter to be decided by admitting this appeal.
Registry shall inform this matter to the trial court as well
as the appellate court, forthwith.
Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
nkr
2 issues framed by the court
Did the plaintiff perfect title to the plaint schedule property by adverse possession?
Does the second appeal involve a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC warranting admission?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raghavan v. DevayaniRelied on¶10
2024 KHC Online 192
Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and OthersRelied on¶19
[2020 KHC 6507 : AIR 2020 SC 4321 : 2020 (10) SCALE 168] · Who else cites this
Government of Kerala v. JosephRelied on¶20
[2023 (5) KHC 264 : 2023 (5) KLT 74 SC]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Laila Rasheed
Shabeena Beevi A.R
Shareena Beevi A.R
Shafeena A.R
Shameena A.R
Nixon Xavior
A. Badharudeen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
