In this second appeal challenging findings on adverse possession, the High Court affirmed the lower courts' determination that adverse possession is a negative plea and dismissed the appellants' suit to claim ownership.
The decision was dismissed while directing that the legal representatives of Bhagat Singh be dispossessed in due process of law.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No.1619 of 1988 Date of Decision: 10.2.2010
Gurbax Singh and others.
....... Appellants through Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate.
Versus
Sadhu Singh and others.
....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2
through Shri Kabir Sarin, Advocate.
None for other respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Mahesh Grover,J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 12.3.1987 and 30.5.1988 passed respectively by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Tarn Taran (hereinafter described as the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Amritsar (referred to hereinafter as the first appellate Court').
Bhagat Singh alias Bhag Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse
R.S.A.No.1619 of 1988
-2-
possession. He had also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants (now respondents) from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property.
Both the Courts determined the possession in favour of Bhagat Ram, but did not hold him to be the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the Courts below by contending that the same are perverse and deserve to be set aside.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below are correct.
The plea of adverse possession which is a plea in the negative against the true owner of the property, can only be taken up as a defence and not to assert a right. Therefore, the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit of Bhagat Singh.
In so far as the possession of Bhagat Singh over the suit property is concerned, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have held that he was in possession thereof. It is a settled proposition of law that even a trespasser has to be ousted from a property in due process of law.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 very fairly stated that his clients will have recourse to process of law for dispossessing the legal representatives of Bhagat Singh from the suit property.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with an
R.S.A.No.1619 of 1988
-3-
observation that the legal representatives of Bhagat Singh alias Bhag Singh shall be dispossessed in due process of law.
February 10,2010 “SCM”
( Mahesh Grover ) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a plea of adverse possession can be taken to assert a positive right instead of as a defence.
Whether the lower courts erred in determining possession in favour of Bhagat Ram without declaring title through adverse possession.
Whether the second appeal should be allowed or dismissed on merits.
Gurbax Singh and others
Sadhu Singh and others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
