Jit Ram Now Deceased Through Lrs vs Satnam Singh

1

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9087 OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.13835 of 2019)

JIT RAM NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS. …Appellants

VERSUS

SATNAM SINGH …Respondent

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated

28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2013 (O&M).

3. One Banta, father of Jit Ram and Sibo, died on 02.07.1992. Sibo,

though married, was not staying with her husband, but used to reside with

her father Banta. After the death of Banta, Sibo filed Civil Suit No.143 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.11.28 1993 for declaration that she had become the owner and was in possession 17:21:01 IST Reason:

of land admeasuring 5 kanals out of land admeasuring 9 kanals 14 marlas Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh

2

owned and possessed by Banta on the basis of Will dated 26.06.1992

executed by Banta. Sibo also sought a decree for permanent injunction to

restrain Jit Ram from interfering with her possession and from alienating

the land or any portion thereof. The Suit was dismissed by the Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, by his judgment and decree

dated 28.04.1998. It was held that the Will, on the basis of which the claim

was raised, was highly suspicious and that Sibo had failed to prove her

case.

4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by Satnam Singh, a

relation of Sibo and Jit Ram, by filing First Appeal in the court of the

Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It was submitted that with the

consent of Banta he had erected a kachha structure in the land in question

and that he was in occupation of that structure in his own right. The

contentions were rejected and the First Appeal was dismissed by the Lower

Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 14.01.2003. No further

challenge was raised and thus, the decree became final as against Sibo and

Satnam Singh, the Respondent herein.

5. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.293 of 2003 was filed by Jit Ram against

the Respondent for possession of portion of the property over which that Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh

3

kachha structure marked as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan was situate. The

matter was contested by the Respondent by filing his written statement

submitting inter alia that by virtue of a Will executed by Sibo in favour of

him, the Respondent had an independent interest in the property. A plea of

adverse possession was also taken in the alternative. The Trial Court

dismissed said Suit by its judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 holding

inter alia that the Respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession

and the Suit was barred by limitation.

6. Jit Ram, being aggrieved, preferred Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2011 in

the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was allowed by

Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2013. The Appellate Court found that

the claim of Sibo having been dismissed in the earlier round, she could not

have conferred any title with respect to the property by a Will in favour of

the Respondent. It was also found that the possession of the Respondent

was purely permissive and that the claim on the ground of adverse

possession was completely untenable.

7. The Respondent, being aggrieved, filed Regular Second Appeal

No.3809 of 2013 (O&M) in the High Court. Jit Ram having expired

during the pendency of said Appeal, his heirs were substituted in his place. Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh

4

By its Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2019 said Second Appeal was

allowed by the High Court. The High Court approved the findings of the

Appellate Court insofar as it was held that the Respondent could not have

succeeded to the suit property on the basis of any will executed by Sibo.

However, the finding as regards issue of adverse possession was reversed

and the finding of the Trial Court was restored. It was observed that the

Respondent had remained in open and hostile possession of the Suit

property which he had constructed in the year 1989.

8. In this Appeal we have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned Advocate

for the Appellant and Ms. Tina Garg, learned Advocate for the Respondent.

9. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the Respondent

of portion marked ‘ABCD’ and his occupation of the structure was purely

permissive in character. At no stage the possession was hostile to the

owners of the property. The element of hostility was completely missing.

The finding rendered by the Appellate Court was, therefore, absolutely

correct and there was no occasion for the High Court, while exercising

second appellate jurisdiction, to set aside that finding. In our view, the

High Court clearly erred in accepting the Second Appeal. Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh

5

10. The fact however remains that the structure was put up by the

Respondent. Pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court the

pictures of the structure have been shown to the Court. The structure is

completely dilapidated and in our view the value of the structure may not

have been more than Rs.5,000/-. However, considering the fact that the

money was spent by the Respondent in the year 1989, in our view, ends of

justice would be met if the Appellants are directed to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards the cost of the

structure.

11. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment

and Order under Appeal to the extent it held against the Appellants on the

issue of adverse possession and we restore the Judgment and Decree dated

19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court subject to the Appellants paying

Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent within four weeks from today. The amount

shall be deposited in the Trial Court and shall be released to the

Respondent if he vacates and hands over possession of the structure to the

Appellants within two weeks after the deposit, whereafter the Respondent

shall cease to have any interest in the structure. In case he refuses to

vacate and hand over such possession, the Respondent shall not be entitled Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs. vs. Satnam Singh

6

to the sum so deposited and the sum could then be withdrawn by the

Appellants, who shall then be entitled to execute the decree dated

19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court.

12. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.

……………..……………J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]

………………………….J. [Vineet Saran] New Delhi;

November 28, 2019.