KESAR BAI versus GENDA LAL & ANR.

KESAR BAI versus GENDA LAL & ANR.

Because all courts below negated plaintiffs' claim of ownership under the registered sale deed and the High Court answered the substantial question of law on adverse possession in favor of the appellant (thus rejecting the plaintiffs' adverse possession plea), the plaintiffs were not entitled to protection of their alleged possession by a decree of permanent injunction; accordingly the High Court erred in confirming the First Appellate Court's decree and the trial court's dismissal was restored.

Parties
Appellant (original Defendant No.1): Genda Lal; Respondent (original Plaintiff): Kesar Bai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Declaration of Title, Permanent Injunction, Registered Sale Deed
Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Declaration of Title Permanent Injunction Registered Sale Deed

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Genda Lal

Appellant (original Defendant No.1)

Kesar Bai

Respondent (original Plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the High Court Judgment in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs could claim title by adverse possession after their claim based on a registered sale deed was negated by the courts below
  2. 2 Whether a decree of permanent injunction can protect possession when title is not established

Ratio Decidendi

Because all courts below negated plaintiffs' claim of ownership under the registered sale deed and the High Court answered the substantial question of law on adverse possession in favor of the appellant (thus rejecting the plaintiffs' adverse possession plea), the plaintiffs were not entitled to protection of their alleged possession by a decree of permanent injunction; accordingly the High Court erred in confirming the First Appellate Court's decree and the trial court's dismissal was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1999 quashed and set aside
  • Judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court quashed and set aside