In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-60 of 2019, reaffirming the principles of adverse possession and ruling in favor of Rajendra Kumar Gupta. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, emphasized that permissive possession cannot evolve into adverse possession without clear proof of hostile intent. To claim adverse possession, possession must be open, continuous, and without the rightful owner’s consent for at least 12 years.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a property dispute over 7.60 acres of land in Mowa village, Raipur. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, the respondent, had acquired ownership through a registered sale deed in 1968 and filed a suit in 1986 to recover possession after alleging that the appellants, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, wrongfully dispossessed him in 1983. The appellants claimed they had been in continuous possession since 1968, asserting adverse possession and arguing that the land was part of their joint family property.
Key Legal Issues
1. Adverse Possession: The appellants needed to prove continuous, hostile possession for 12 years, without the owner's permission.
2. Joint Family Property: The court had to decide whether the land was part of a joint Hindu family property.
3. Benami Transaction: The appellants contended the sale deed was a benami transaction, which the court had to assess.
Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' claim of adverse possession, pointing to their admission in a 1981 application that they had leased the land from the respondent in the 1970s. This admission indicated permissive possession, not hostile possession. The Court reiterated that for adverse possession, the claimant must demonstrate hostile intent and continuous occupation, which the appellants failed to do. The Court also ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the land was joint family property and found the sale deed legitimate, dismissing claims of a benami transaction.
Verdict
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, dismissing the appeals and ruling that the appellants’ claim of adverse possession was legally untenable. The Court also closed a contempt petition and ruled that Rajendra Kumar Gupta was entitled to execute the decree for possession of the land.
This ruling underscores the strict requirements for proving adverse possession and reinforces the need for clear evidence of hostile intent to override rightful ownership.
Advotalks: Talk To Lawyers https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
