Second appeal by purchasers of immovable property. Court rejected defense of bona fide purchase and adverse possession, holding vendor lacked title and mere co-owner possession without ouster does not constitute adverse title. Appeal dismissed.
<b>No relief granted other than <b>dismissal</b> of second appeal;<b> original decree confirmed.</b>
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.
-1-
RSA No.851 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.851 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.09.2015
Baljit Singh and another
.......Appellants
Versus
Pirthi Singh and others
......Respondents
Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the appellants.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.851 of 2013 (O&M)
share and yet another person Suba Singh whose descendant is Surjit Kaur became entitled to 1/3rd share. The mutation was said to have been effected even in the year 1982-83 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 contended that they were bona fide purchasers of the property from Ajmer Singh making sure that Ajmer Singh was owner of the 2/3rd share by looking into the mutation of revenue entries and believing the vendor's representation that the property had come to him in an oral partition. The contention also was that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were, and before them, Ajmer Singh was in possession of the property adversely to the interest of the plaintiffs, having taken a mutation in their name and their title had fructified by adverse possession.
contentions for the only reason that the concept of bona fide purchase is PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
RSA No.851 of 2013 (O&M)
wrongly employed by persons who had purchased the property from person who had no right to the property. If only the rightful owners are allowed for transaction to take place without any contest for such a purchase and they had actively collaborated with the vendor to make the sale, then the bona fides can come into play. If the 1st defendant himself was not shown to be the owner of the property by virtue of the fact that the plaintiffs had admittedly claimed 1/3rd share as brother's children of Ajmer Singh and Ajmer Singh himself was entitled only to 1/3rd share, the mere mutation of revenue entry cannot support title of Ajmer Singh to a larger share unless it was a case of hostile possession with knowledge brought to the real owners by possession of Ajmer Singh ousting the remaining co-sharers. A mere exclusive holding of one coowner cannot constitute an adverse title and the law requires something more viz; of a hostile conduct excluding the possession with the knowledge that their title was being denied. The component of ouster is much more rigorous amongst co-owners, for, the presumption in law is that the possession of one co-owner is always on behalf of the other coowners. Without the hostile conduct on the part of Ajmer Singh, a mere reference to a revenue entry as giving him exclusive right to the property to the exclusion of other co-owners was clearly misplaced. I must also observe that there is not even a plea of ouster in the written statement filed by any of the defendants. There is no question of defendants succeeding with regard to the purchase from a person who was not even entitled to the property.
and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The second appeal is PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.851 of 2013 (O&M)
-4-
dismissed as involving no substantial question of law for consideration in
favour of the appellants and the point of law against them.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 17, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.19 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bona fide purchase protects purchasers when the vendor had no title to the property partitioned orally.
Whether adverse possession can be claimed based on hostile possession against co-owners without explicit ouster.
Whether revenue mutation entries alone establish exclusive ownership to the exclusion of co-sharers.
Baljit Singh and another
Pirthi Singh and others
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
