BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

The High Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation because the plaintiffs acquired title by registered sale deed on 21.01.1966; any dispute as to possession vis-à-vis the defendants arose only after that date and the suit filed in May 1975 was within 12 years; prior possession by defendants as tenants was permissive and not adverse to the Zamindar, and the land was held to be non-agricultural and not subject to Zamindari Abolition, hence the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs is maintained.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs.; Respondent/defendant: Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside; judgment of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession maintained.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Period, Injunction, Possession, Title Under Registered Sale Deed, Zamindari Abolition
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Adverse Possession Limitation Period Injunction Possession Title Under Registered Sale Deed +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs.

Appellant/plaintiff

Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants/respondents perfected title by adverse possession since 1944 so as to bar the plaintiff's suit filed in 1975 by limitation
  2. 2 Whether the possession of the defendants as tenants prior to 1966 could be adverse to the Zamindar or subsequent purchaser
  3. 3 Whether the land was covered by Zamindari Abolition and whether that conferred ownership on the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in holding the suit barred by limitation because the plaintiffs acquired title by registered sale deed on 21.01.1966; any dispute as to possession vis-à-vis the defendants arose only after that date and the suit filed in May 1975 was within 12 years; prior possession by defendants as tenants was permissive and not adverse to the Zamindar, and the land was held to be non-agricultural and not subject to Zamindari Abolition, hence the First Appellate Court's decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs is maintained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside; judgment of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession maintained.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 15.05.2012 set aside
  • Judgment of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession maintained