Gurpeet Singh and Others Vs Nagar Council,Sunam

The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plainffs, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, in as much as, the suit filed by the plainffs for declaraon, along with consequenal relief of permanent injuncon in respect of the suit property, came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002. The appeal preferred by the plainffs-appellants was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002, thereby affirming the findings of the trial Court.

¶17

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶19

The record of the trial Court has been received and carefully perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the pares. Translated copies of the relevant documents have also been placed on record for proper appreciaon.

¶20

For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the par*es shall hereina7er be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.

¶21

The subject ma9er of the dispute pertains to land measuring 41 Kanal 3 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Sunam, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint.

¶22

5.1 Plain�ff’s Case : As per the case set up by the plain*ffs, their predecessor-in-interest, namely Baljit Singh, had taken forcible possession of the suit land on 13.04.1968, at a *me when the land was owned by Gram Panchayat Moranwali. Subsequently, upon inclusion of the area within municipal limits, the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist, and all its rights, *tle, and interest in the suit land stood vested in the defendant (respondent herein) Nagar Council, Sunam.

¶23

5.2 Baljit Singh is stated to have remained in possession of the suit land ll his death in October, 1980. Therea7er, the plainffs, being his widow and sons, claim to have connued in uninterrupted possession of the suit property. It is their specific case that neither Baljit Singh nor the plainffs ever paid any rent, lease amount, or ‘chakota’ to the defendant or its predecessor. The plainffs assert that their possession, as well as that of their predecessor, has been actual, open, connuous, uninterrupted, hosle, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby fulfilling all the necessary ingredients of adverse possession. On this premise, it is claimed that the plainffs have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

¶24

5.3 It is further averred that the defendant, taking advantage of its recorded ownership in the revenue records, has been a9empng to transfer the suit property and to dispossess the plainffs by use of force. Despite requests

¶25

Page 2 of 11

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶28

made by the plainffs to recognize their rights, the defendant failed to accede, compelling the plainffs to instute the present suit seeking a declaraon of ownership by way of adverse possession, along with a decree of permanent injuncon restraining the defendant from alienang the suit property or interfering with their possession.

¶29

Defendant’s Stand : Contesng the suit, the defendant though admi9ed that the plainffs were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the suit property as reflected in the revenue record, but specifically denied that the plainffs had acquired ownership by adverse possession. Several preliminary objecons were also raised, including want of statutory noce, lack of locus standi, estoppel, and concealment of material facts, besides the plea that the suit was frivolous and instuted only to harass the defendant.

¶30

On the basis of the pleadings of the pares, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Both pares led their respec*ve evidence in support of their claims, which was taken on record.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the pares, the learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Both sides led their respecve evidence, which was duly taken on record.

¶32

9.1 Findings of the Courts below: Upon appreciaon of the evidence adduced, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the plainffs had failed to establish their plea of connuous possession over the suit property since 13.04.1968, as asserted in the plaint. It was noced that the entries in the Jamabandi reflected the possession of the plainffs only from the year 1974–75 onwards, and no documentary evidence or revenue record prior thereto had been produced to substanate their claim of earlier possession.

¶33

9.2 The trial Court further held that, in respect of property belonging to the Government or a statutory authority, a period of 30 years is required to perfect tle by way of adverse possession. In the present case, the suit had been instuted in May, 2001 and, even if the plain*ffs’ possession was taken

¶34

Page 3 of 11

¶35

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶37

from the year 1974–75, the requisite statutory period of 30 years had not elapsed. Consequently, the plain*ffs were held not to have perfected their *tle over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

¶38

9.3 It was also observed that the possession of the plainffs, as reflected in the revenue record, was illegal and unauthorized in nature, and such possession could not be granted protecon in law. On these findings, the suit filed by the plain*ffs was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 20.03.2002.

¶39

Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plain*ffs preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed in toto, and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment & decree dated 18.10.2002.

¶40

11.1 Conten�ons of the Appellants – Plain�ffs : Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants–plainffs contended that the said findings suffer from patent illegality and perversity. It was argued that both the Courts below have erred in disbelieving the case of the plainffs regarding their possession over the suit property since April, 1968, i.e., from the *me their predecessor Baljit Singh allegedly took forcible possession thereof.

¶41

11.2 In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel invited the a9enon of this Court to the legal noce (Ex.P1) issued by the plainffs to the defendant–Nagar Council, Sunam under Secon 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, wherein it was specifically asserted that the plainffs, and prior thereto their predecessor Baljit Singh, had been in possession of the suit property since 13.04.1968. It was further asserted therein that such possession was actual, exclusive, connuous, open, hosle, and to the knowledge of the true owner, thereby constu*ng adverse possession under colour of tle. Learned counsel then referred to the reply dated 02.05.2001 (Ex.P2) sent by the defendant, wherein the possession of the plainffs, and earlier of Baljit Singh, was admitted.

¶42

Page 4 of 11

¶43

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶45

11.3 It was contended that there was no specific denial of the plainffs’ asseron regarding the commencement of possession from 13.04.1968. Reliance was also placed upon the pleadings of the pares to contend that, although possession was admi9ed in the wri9en statement, the specific date of commencement of possession, as pleaded by the plainffs, was not expressly denied. On this premise, learned senior counsel argued that the plainffs had successfully established connuous possession for a period exceeding 30 years prior to the instuon of the suit in May, 2001, and thus their possession had ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession.

¶46

11.4 In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon “Parkash Kaur and others vs. Joginder Singh and others” 2018(1) RCR (Civil) 145 , to contend that admi9ed facts need not be proved and that admission constutes the best evidence. Further reliance was placed upon “M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by LRs vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others” (2007) 6 SCC 401 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an averment not specifically denied in the wri9en statement is deemed to have been admi9ed, and in view of Secon 58 of the Evidence Act, such admi9ed facts need not be proved. Reliance was also placed upon “Surjit Singh (since deceased) vs. Mahinder Singh and others” 2025 NCPHHC 148250 , to contend that long, open, and hos*le possession matures into ownership.

¶47

12.1 Conten�ons of the Respondent - Defendant : Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–Municipal Council, Sunam contended that although the defendant had admi9ed the possession of the plain*ffs over the suit property, there was no admission whatsoever that such possession commenced from April, 1968.

¶48

12.2 It was further argued that the suit property was originally owned by Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, and it was only during the year 1997–98 that the ownership stood transferred to the defendant–Municipal Council, Sunam. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the Jamabandi for the year 1994–95

¶49

Page 5 of 11

¶50

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶52

(Ex.D1), which reflects muta*on No.8781 recording the change of ownership in favour of the defendant.

¶53

12.3 Learned counsel further submi9ed that the revenue record produced by the plainffs themselves commences only from the year 1974–75, which shows the ownership of Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali and possession of Baljit Singh. It was highlighted that no documentary evidence prior to 1974–75 had been produced, and even as per the plainffs’ own applica*on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, no such record was available.

¶54

12.4 The tesmony of the plainffs’ witnesses was also assailed on the ground that two of them had no personal knowledge of the alleged inial possession, while the third witness merely stated that the plainffs had been in possession for about 30 years.

¶55

12.5 It was further pointed out that the nature of the land, as reflected in the revenue record, was partly ‘Chahi’ and partly ‘Gair Mumkin’, and in subsequent records, a poron of the suit land connued to be described as ‘Gair Mumkin’.

¶56

12.6 A9enon was also drawn to addional evidence sought to be placed on record by the defendant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, including Khasra Girdawari entries from 2005 to 2021, which depict the land as ‘Gair Mumkin’, with part of it being used as a pond. Reference was made to the report of the Naib Tehsildar (Ex.A4), indicang that the land was being used for disposal of garbage and dirty water by the Municipal Council. Photographs annexed with the applicaon were also relied upon to substanate this posion. Despite noce, no reply to the applicaon for addi*onal evidence was filed by the appellants.

¶57

12.7 It was further argued that in the case of vacant or ‘Gair Mumkin’ land, possession follows tle, and therefore, the defendant being the recorded owner, is presumed to be in possession. It was also contended that the conn-

¶58

Page 6 of 11

¶59

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶61

ued recording of Baljit Singh’s possession in revenue records even a7er his death in 1980 renders such entries unreliable and devoid of eviden*ary value.

¶62

12.8 Learned senior counsel further argued that the plea of adverse possession is required to be strictly proved and cannot be presumed. In this regard, reliance was placed upon “Ravinder Kumar Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur” (2019) 8 SCC 729 , “Saroop Singh vs. Banto” (2005) 8 SCC 330 , and “Ram Nagina Rai vs. Deo Kumar Rai” (2019) 13 SCC 324 .

¶63

12.9 It was also contended that in cases involving Government or public property, the requirements for establishing adverse possession are even more stringent, as held in “R. Hanumaiah vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department” (2010) 5 SCC 203 . Further reliance was placed upon “Thankappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others” 2022(2) CTC 19 (Madras High Court) to contend that property reserved for public purposes, such as water bodies, is held by the State as a trust for the public, and therefore, no individual can claim ownership over such property by way of adverse possession.

¶64

12.10 On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal, contending that no substanal queson of law arises for considera*on and that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below warrant no interference.

¶65

Substan6al Ques6ons of Law : Upon hearing learned counsel for the pares, the following quesons arise for considera*on:

¶66

Whether mere admission of possession by the defendant, without specific denial of the date of commencement, is sufficient to establish adverse possession?

¶67

Whether the plain*ffs have discharged the burden of proving adverse possession over Government/public property in accordance with se9led legal principles?

¶68

Page 7 of 11

¶69

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶71

Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from perversity or misapplicaon of law warranng interference under Sec*on 100 CPC?

¶72

Considera�on by this Court : This Court has given its thoughPul consideraon to the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for both the pares and has carefully appraised the en*re record.

¶73

At the outset, it may be noced that the suit was instuted in May, 2001. The enre edifice of the plainffs’ claim rests upon the asseron that they, and prior to them their predecessor Baljit Singh, had been in unauthorized possession of the suit property since 13.04.1968 and, therefore, by efflux of me, their possession had matured into ownership by way of adverse possession, parcularly keeping in view the extended limitaon period of 30 years applicable to Government property.

¶74

However, upon a careful scruny of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the said foundaonal plea has not been substanated. The revenue record produced by the plainffs themselves commences only from the year 1974–75. These entries indicate that the ownership of the suit property vested in Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, and Baljit Singh was recorded in possession as a non-occupancy tenant. There is a conspicuous absence of any documentary evidence prior to 1974–75. Even during the appellate stage, when an applicaon under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed, the plainffs themselves admi9ed that no earlier revenue record was available. Thus, the asser*on of possession since April, 1968 remains uncorroborated by any contemporaneous documentary evidence.

¶75

The oral evidence led by the plain*ffs also fails to inspire confidence. PW-1, Gurpreet Singh, being only 28 years of age at the me of his deposion in 2001, could not have had personal knowledge of events allegedly occurring in 1968. PW-2 Kishore Chand admi9edly was not present at the *me, when possession was allegedly taken, as he deposed that the same occurred in the

¶76

Page 8 of 11

¶77

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶79

presence of his father. PW-3 Hari Ram, examined in 2002, though claimed possession of plainffs since 1968, contradicted himself during cross-examinaon by stang that the possession was only for the last 30 years i.e., from 1972. Thus, the oral tesmony is inconsistent, hearsay in nature, and insufficient to establish con*nuous possession from 1968.

¶80

Much reliance has been placed by the plainffs on the legal noce (Ex.P1) and its reply (Ex.P2). While it is correct that in the reply, the defendant admi9ed the possession of the plain*ffs, there is no categorical admission that such possession dates back to 13.04.1968. Even if the absence of specific denial is construed as an admission in terms of pleadings, the same cannot be treated as conclusive proof in a case of this nature.

¶81

It is trite law that a claim of adverse possession, parcularly against the Government or a public authority, must be proved with a higher degree of certainty and strictness. Mere long possession or vague asserons cannot substute for clear, cogent, and convincing evidence demonstrang all essenal ingredients of adverse possession, namely, possession that is actual, open, connuous, hos*le, and to the knowledge of the true owner.

¶82

In Ravinder Kumar Grewal’s Case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cau*oned that courts should be circumspect in conferring tle by adverse possession, especially in respect of property dedicated to public use. It was observed that such properes are o7en subject to encroachments, and permiRng rights to accrue by adverse possession in such cases would defeat public interest.

¶83

Further, in R.Hanumaiah’s Case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession against Government land. It was held that mere occupaon or sporadic entries in revenue record are insufficient; and that the claimant must establish connuous, open, hosle possession with the requisite animus for the enre statutory period, and such possession must be clearly established by reliable evidence.

¶84

Page 9 of 11

¶85

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶86

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶87

The Court further emphasized that vague or doubPul asserons, or entries procured without proper verificaon, cannot be relied upon to defeat the *tle of the State.

¶88

The principle is further reinforced in Thankappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) , wherein it was held that properes reserved for public purposes, such as water bodies or common ulies, are held by the State in trust for the public under the public trust doctrine. In such cases, the concept of adverse possession is severely restricted, as the claimant must establish hoslity not only against the State but also against the beneficial interest of the general public, a requirement which is, in praccal terms, nearly impossible to sasfy.

¶89

Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.

¶90

24.1 Firstly, the plainffs have failed to prove their possession since April, 1968. The absence of documentary evidence prior to 1974–75, coupled with unreliable oral tesmony, renders their claim untenable.

¶91

24.2 Secondly, the revenue entries showing possession of Baljit Singh even a7er his death in 1980 seriously dent the credibility of the revenue record. Had the plainffs actually succeeded to his possession, the entries ought to have reflected such succession. The connued recording of a deceased person’s possession indicates that such entries are not based on actual physical possession and, therefore, cannot be safely relied upon.

¶92

24.3 Thirdly, the nature of the land, as established by the Khasra Girdawari entries and supported by photographic evidence and the report of the Naib Tehsildar, reveals that the suit property is largely ‘Gair Mumkin’ land, with a poron being used as a pond and for disposal of sewage and garbage. In such circumstances, possession, if any, cannot be a9ributed to the plainffs; rather, possession follows *tle, and the defendant, being the recorded owner, is deemed to be in possession.

¶93

Page 10 of 11

¶94

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶95

RSA-2068-2003 (O&M)

¶96

24.4 Fourthly, the plainffs have failed to examine any official from the Nagar Panchayat, Moranwali, which was the original owner of the suit property prior to its vesng in the Municipal Council, Sunam. Such evidence would have been crucial to establish the alleged possession since 1968. The omission to lead such best evidence raises an adverse inference against the plain*ffs.

¶97

24.5 Lastly , even assuming that the plainffs were in possession, such possession is clearly unauthorized and in the nature of trespass. It is well se9led that a trespasser cannot seek protecon of possession against the true owner, par*cularly when the owner is a public authority.

¶98

Conclusion : In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plainffs have failed to establish the essenal ingredients of adverse possession. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciaon of evidence and correct applicaon of law and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranng any interference under Secon 100 CPC.

¶99

Consequently, all the substanal quesons of law are answered against the appellants. The present appeal is held to be devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

¶100

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 06.04.2026 Nee�ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes

¶101

Uploaded on.: 07.04.2026

¶102

Page 11 of 11

¶103

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.07 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurpeet Singh and Others v. Nagar Council,Sunam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpeet Singh and Others v. Nagar Council,Sunam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jubiliant Malls Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Slk Krishna Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs M/S Mohan Trading Company

Ishwar Singh Vs Suresh and Others

Jaskaran Singh Vs Gurjit Kaur and Another

Santosh and Anr. Vs Bijender and Ors.

Kalawati Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Esi Corporation