Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 4412 of 1996. The trial court had decreed the suit in terms of paragraphs 7(A) and 7(B) of the plaint and directed the defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiffs within 30 days. The appellants were the original defendants, and the opponents were the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and possession of two rooms situated on land admeasuring 560 square yards bearing Survey No.156 (Paiki), Naroda, Ahmedabad, referred to as the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that plaintiff No.1 was the son of Bachumal Tolaram and grandson of Tolaram Haniram, who purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 25.08.1975. Additionally, Bachumal Tolaram purchased another parcel of the same survey number admeasuring 560 square yards by a registered sale deed bearing No.12583 dated 26.08.1975. Thus, the grandfather and father of plaintiff No.1 became the sole owners. The defendants, who were in possession, claimed adverse possession for over 12 years. The trial court, after considering the evidence, held that the plaintiffs had proved their title through registered sale deeds, and the defendants failed to establish adverse possession. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the trial court's findings, noting that the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence to show that their possession was adverse to the plaintiffs' title. The court also observed that the suit was filed in 1996, and the defendants' claim of adverse possession from 1975 was not supported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - First Appeal against decree for possession - The appellants (original defendants) challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, decreeing the suit for possession and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and found the plaintiffs' title established through registered sale deeds, while the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. (Paras 1-11) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of proof - The defendants claimed adverse possession for over 12 years, but the court held that they failed to prove the requisite animus possidendi and exclusive possession hostile to the true owner. The plaintiffs' registered sale deeds from 1975 were held to be valid and binding, and the defendants' possession was permissive or at best unauthorized, not adverse. (Paras 3-10) C) Limitation - Suit for possession - The suit was filed in 1996, and the defendants' claim of adverse possession from 1975 was rejected as the plaintiffs' title was not extinguished. The court noted that the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence to show that their possession was adverse to the plaintiffs' title. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in decreeing the suit for possession and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs based on the registered sale deed and rejecting the defendants' claim of adverse possession.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court's decree dated 30.06.2025, directing the defendants to vacate the suit property and hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiffs within 30 days.
Law Points
- Section 96 CPC
- adverse possession
- registered sale deed
- burden of proof
- limitation
