Supreme Court: Tenant Is Not Entitled to Adverse Possession

According to the Supreme Court, a tenant cannot assert adverse possession in this situation; instead, possession is only permissive against landlords. Judges Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal’s bench granted an appeal against the 2012 verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which annulled the trial court’s and first appeal court’s rulings and dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit due to statute of limitations.

The 3,500 square foot site in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, is the subject of the dispute. Through a documented sale deed dated January 21, 1966, the plaintiff obtained ownership of the open plot of land from the former Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. Furthermore, they asserted that they were in possession in accordance with the selling document.

When the appellant attempted to build on the bought property in 1975, the defendants protested and created obstacles, which led to the May 28, 1975, filing of the contested matter, which sought an injunction along with alternative possession remedy.

The defendant-respondent said that in 1944, a claim for rent arrears for Plot Nos. 1019, 1022, and 1023 was brought, and that there had been previous proceedings between Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants (the respondent’s forebears). Siddheshwari Narain and Deep Chandra received the property in question via a private division as part of the settlement between the zamindar and co-sharers; hence, these co-sharers became the land’s proprietors.

However, the appellate court stated that the High Court erred gravely in dismissing the appellant’s suit on the grounds of limitation because, since 1944, when the first lawsuit for rent arrears was filed, the defendant respondent had perfected or matured their rights through adverse possession.

The highest court said that one of the reasons was that the High Court had not addressed the decisions made by the trial court and the first appellate court on the question of limitation and the material that was taken into consideration by them. It noted that the High Court made a mistake while considering the second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reconsidered the conclusions to challenge factual findings.

Additionally, it made clear that the plaintiff appellants had not been found to be the owners or to have failed to provide sufficient evidence of ownership by the High Court. The 1944 lawsuit dealt only with rent arrears and had nothing to do with a possession issue. In contrast to the previous landlords, the defendant respondents’ possession was permissive as they were tenants. The bench said that they had no intention of alleging any adverse possession from 1944.

According to our analysis, the plaintiff appellants obtained their ownership and title on January 21, 1966, via the registered sale deed. The possession issue with the defendant respondents would only surface after the specified date, never before or after. It is true that the lawsuit was brought in May 1975, inside the allotted 12-year term starting on the date of the selling transaction. Since the defendant respondents were tenants and their tenancy would be permitted in nature rather than hostile, even if it is claimed that they were in possession from before 1944, their occupancy could not have been unfavorable to The Zamindars. Before 1966, there were no possession procedures, the bench said.

The HC also observed that the claim of ownership from the date of zamindari’s abolition was likewise without merit, as the first appellate court had specifically found that the property in question was not agricultural land and therefore not covered by the zamindari abolition. The High Court has not overturned the conclusion. It said that the defendant respondents would not be entitled to keep possession since they had not been able to prove their ownership.