Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed two civil appeals arising from a dispute over adverse possession of agricultural lands in Village Purani Chhabani, Guna, Madhya Pradesh. The original plaintiff Matadin (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) filed Suit No. 45A/1995 in 1990 claiming adverse possession over 4 out of 6 Biswas of land in Survey No. 493, relying on Khasra entries of 1960-1961. The suit lands were originally owned by Mool Chand and Kashi Ram, who sold them to defendant Urmila Devi by registered sale deed dated 11.10.1972. Urmila Devi subsequently sold portions to the appellants (Brijesh Kumar and others, and Raman Lal and others) by registered sale deeds dated 22.08.1989, who took possession and raised constructions. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession. The First Appellate Court reversed, finding that the Trial Court had overlooked documentary evidence and that the Khasra entries were suspicious. The High Court in second appeal restored the Trial Court's decree. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence without a finding of perversity. The Court noted that the plaintiff's claim of possession from 1960-1961 was based on Khasra entries made in red ink, which were found to be fraudulent and interpolated by the plaintiff's son and nephew, who were clerks in the collectorate and faced departmental and criminal proceedings. The Court also observed that the plaintiff failed to plead the origin of possession, and the amendment after his death was an afterthought. The sale to Urmila Devi in 1972 before expiry of 12 years interrupted any adverse possession. The Court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession for 12 years. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the First Appellate Court's judgment was restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Reappreciation of Evidence - High Court cannot reappraise evidence in second appeal without a finding of perversity - The High Court reversed the first appellate court's findings on adverse possession without recording that the findings were perverse, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC - Held that the High Court's order was unsustainable (Paras 11-12). B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The claimant must establish peaceful, open, continuous and hostile possession for 12 years, and the origin and nature of possession - The plaintiff failed to prove when and how he came into possession, and the Khasra entries relied upon were found to be fraudulent and interpolated - Held that the claim of adverse possession was not established (Paras 6-10, 13). C) Evidence - Khasra Entries - Presumption and Rebuttal - Under Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, there is a presumption of correctness of Khasra entries, but this presumption is rebuttable - The entries in red ink showing the plaintiff's possession were suspicious and unsupported by evidence of proper correction under Section 115 of the Code - Held that the entries were unreliable (Paras 6-8). D) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Interruption by Sale - The suit lands were sold to a third party before expiry of 12 years from the alleged commencement of adverse possession - The sale deed dated 11.10.1972 and subsequent possession of the purchaser interrupted the plaintiff's possession - Held that the plaintiff's claim of uninterrupted possession for 12 years was unsustainable (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in second appeal was justified in reversing the findings of the first appellate court on adverse possession without a finding of perversity, and whether the plaintiff had established adverse possession over the suit lands.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence without a finding of perversity and that the plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession.
Law Points
- Adverse possession requires peaceful
- open
- continuous and hostile possession for 12 years
- Onus on claimant to prove origin and nature of possession
- Khasra entries can be rebutted by evidence of fraud
- High Court in second appeal cannot reappraise evidence without finding of perversity
