9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1707 - SC - Indian LawsOwnership over the suit schedule property by inheritance - HELD THAT - Once the High Court recorded a finding that the property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suit there was no question of the Plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said property assuming the view taken in JOHN B. JAMES AND ORS. VERSUS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 2000 (8) TMI 1139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT was otherwise legally sound since the so called settled possession of the Appellants in RFA No. 911 of 2002 stood vacated from the suit schedule property no prayer for injunction as set out in the petition filed by the Appellants in those appeals could help them for an injunction issues only to protect what is in lawful possession of the Plaintiffs. Injunction could not be claimed when Plaintiffs stand dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of the suit. The question of establishing settled possession did not therefore arise in relation to the properties that already stood cleared of any structures by demolition of whatever stood on the same. The High Court was in that view justified in setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. The High Court has in particular remained oblivious of the principle enunciated in the decisions to which are referred. All that the High Court has found in favour of the Plaintiffs is that their possession is established. That however does not conclude the controversy. The question is not just whether the Plaintiffs were in possession but whether they had by being in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years perfected their title. That question has neither been adverted to nor answered in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Such being the case the High Court in our opinion erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant-BDA. The fact that the Plaintiffs had not and could not possibly establish their adverse possession over the suit property should have resulted in dismissal of the suit for an unauthorised occupant had no right to claim relief that would perpetuate his illegal and unauthorised occupation of property that stood vested in the BDA. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and adverse possession claims by Plaintiffs. 2. Lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 3. Alleged illegal interference and obstructions by the Defendant. 4. Validity of the acquisition and vesting of the suit schedule properties by the Defendant. 5. Plaintiffs' entitlement to relief of declaration and injunction against the Defendant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership and Adverse Possession Claims by Plaintiffs: The Plaintiffs claimed ownership over the suit schedule properties by inheritance and purchase, and also claimed adverse possession. The High Court found that the Plaintiffs could not simultaneously claim ownership and adverse possession. The Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession requires peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession, which was not established by the Plaintiffs. The Court cited Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India and other cases to outline the requirements for adverse possession, which the Plaintiffs failed to meet. 2. Lawful Possession and Enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties: The Trial Court initially found in favor of the Plaintiffs, affirming their lawful possession. However, the High Court overturned this, noting that the properties were vacant land with demolished structures, thus the Plaintiffs could not claim settled possession. The Supreme Court agreed, referencing John B. James v. Bangalore Development Authority, which states that settled possession cannot be claimed over vacant land. 3. Alleged Illegal Interference and Obstructions by the Defendant: The Plaintiffs alleged illegal interference by the Defendant-BDA. The High Court found that the structures on the properties were demolished, indicating that the Plaintiffs were not in possession at the time of the suit. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that an injunction could not be granted to protect possession that was not lawful or established. 4. Validity of the Acquisition and Vesting of the Suit Schedule Properties by the Defendant: The BDA claimed that the properties were acquired and vested in it free from all encumbrances. The Supreme Court supported this, citing U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd. and other cases, which establish that any sale post-notification of acquisition is void. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had not completed the statutory period for adverse possession and that possession was taken by drawing a Panchnama, a permissible mode of taking possession. 5. Plaintiffs' Entitlement to Relief of Declaration and Injunction Against the Defendant: The Trial Court had granted relief to the Plaintiffs, but the High Court reversed this for all but one Plaintiff. The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiffs did not establish adverse possession or lawful possession, thus they were not entitled to the relief sought. The Court emphasized that unauthorized occupants cannot claim relief to perpetuate illegal occupation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by the Plaintiffs (SLP (C) No. 38601 of 2012 and SLP (C) Nos. 12013-12015 of 2013) and allowed the appeal by the BDA (SLP (C) No. 12016 of 2013), setting aside the High Court's judgment that had dismissed BDA's RFA No. 911 of 2002. The suit filed by the Plaintiff in RFA No. 911 of 2002 was dismissed, affirming the BDA's acquisition and possession of the properties.
|
