BRIJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

964                      [2019]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    14 S.C.R. 964              [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A                     BRIJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
                                        v.
                SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
                         (Civil Appeal No.1090 of 2008)
B                             OCTOBER 01, 2019
            [NAVIN SINHA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
             Adverse Possession: Suit for adverse possession filed by
      plaintiff-respondent in 1990 on the ground of possession of lands
      for 30 years prior to filing of the suit relying on the Khasra entries
C
      for 1960-1961 as the foundation of the claim – Case of appellants
      was that the suit lands was sold by the original owners to ‘UD’ by
      way of sale deed dated 11.10.1972 which was subsequently
      purchased by appellants; that Khasra entries for 1969-1973 showed
      ‘UD’ in possession of the lands and that in 1974-1978, the Khasra
D     entries again showed ‘UD’ as the landlord; that Khasra entries for
      1960-1961 and 1974-1978 showing possession of the plaintiff were
      interpolations in red color ink while the entries in name of ‘UD’
      after purchase were made in blue color ink – Held: Plaintiff-
      respondents claimed adverse possession from 1960-1961 – If the
      plaintiff ’s possession itself originated in 1960-1961, it is difficult
E
      to appreciate how the Khasra entries in its name came to be made
      in the very same year – s.115 of the MP Land Revenue Code provides
      that if the Tehsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has been
      made in the land records prepared under s.114 by an officer
      subordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made
F     therein in red ink after making such enquiry from the person
      concerned – Plaintiff led no evidence whatsoever when the
      application for correction in the khasra entry was made and that
      the original land owner was heard before the corrections were made
      – Khasra entries in red ink, claimed by the plaintiff in proof of
      possession remained unexplained and doubtful – After purchase of
G
      the lands by ‘UD’, her name was entered in the Khasra as landlord
      during 1969-1973 along with possession as also during 1974-1978
      – Once it is concluded that the red ink entries regarding corrections
      in the Khasra showing possession of the plaintiff were suspicious,
      based on fraud and forgery, the recordings in the name of the
H
                                     964
      BRIJESH KUMAR v. SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.                         965


plaintiff were irrelevant – The name of ‘UD’ was also shown in the      A
Khasra entries for 1984-1989 in blue ink – Therefore, conclusion
of the first appellate court with regard to possession of the lands
being with ‘UD’ after purchase considered along with the report of
the court commissioner, and who subsequently sold it to the
appellants on basis of a registered sale deed, called for no
                                                                        B
interference – Also, the suit land was sold to ‘UD’ before the expiry
of 12 years on 11.10.1972 and she was put in possession and,
therefore, plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted possession for 12 years
was unsustainable as completely devoid of substance – Plaintiff
failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous possession
demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner – The onus        C
lay on the plaintiff to establish when and how he came into
possession, the nature of his possession, the factum of possession
known and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over
12 years which was open and undisturbed – Plaintiff failed to
discharge the onus – The order of the High Court is held to be
                                                                        D
unsustainable and is set aside.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1. The plaintiff in a suit filed in 1990, asserted
possession of the lands for past 30 years prior to the filing of the
suit, relying on the Khasra entries for 1960-1961. The nature           E
and origin of the claim for possession was absent in the pleadings.
In his evidence, the respondent deposed that since the original
land owner had failed to return his bullocks and agricultural
equipments borrowed in 1958-1959, he had taken possession of
the lands in 1960-1961. The original plaintiff expired on
26.05.1994. The respondents, who are his legal heirs, then filed        F
an application on 21.04.1995 to amend the pleadings to bring it
in accord with the evidence. If the plaintiff’s possession itself
originated in 1960-1961 it is difficult to appreciate how the Khasra
entries in its name came to be made in the very same year.
Section 115 of the Code provides that if the Tehsildar finds that a     G
wrong or incorrect entry has been made in the land records
prepared under Section 114 by an officer subordinate to him, he
shall direct necessary changes to be made therein in red ink after
making such enquiry from the person concerned as he may deem
fit after due notice. The plaintiff led no evidence whatsoever
                                                                        H
966            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A     when the application for correction in the khasra entry was made
      and that the original land owner was heard before the corrections
      were made. The entries in the name of the purchaser pursuant to
      the sale deed dated 11.10.1972 are in blue ink. The corrections
      in the khasra entry, the sheet anchor of the respondents claim
      therefore remains unexplained and doubtful. At this stage, it is
B
      crucial to notice the findings of the appellate court that the son
      and nephew of the Plaintiff were working as clerks in the
      collectorate. They were proceeded against departmentally and
      in a criminal prosecution regarding the corrections made in red
      ink in the Khasra entries incorporating the name of the plaintiff
C     as being forged and fictitious. The fact that they may have been
      acquitted in the criminal prosecution on a benefit of doubt, or
      that exoneration may have been ordered in the departmental
      proceeding based on procedural irregularity, are not considered
      relevant as findings in a civil suit are to be based on preponderance
      of probabilities considering the nature of evidence available.
D
      [Paras 6, 7] [970-E-H; 971-A-D]
            2. The conclusion of the first appellate court with regard to
      possession of the lands being with ‘UD’ after purchase considered
      along with the report of the court commissioner, and who
      subsequently sold it to the appellants on basis of a registered
E     sale deed, called for no interference. The finding that the
      appellants had admitted the possession of the plaintiff-respondent
      on account of the failure of the original land owners to return his
      bullocks and agricultural equipments is held to be perverse. The
      plaintiff claimed adverse possession from 1960-1961. The lands
F     were sold to ‘UD’ before the expiry of 12 years on 11.10.1972
      and she was put in possession. The plaintiff ’s claim of
      uninterrupted possession for twelve years was therefore
      unsustainable as completely devoid of substance. [Paras 9, 10]
      [971-F-H]
G           3. Adverse possession is hostile possession by assertion
      of a hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. The
      respondent had failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous
      possession demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner.
      It thus involved question of facts and law. The onus lay on the
      respondent to establish when and how he came into possession,
H
      BRIJESH KUMAR v. SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.                           967


the nature of his possession, the factum of possession known              A
and hostile to the other parties, continuous possession over 12
years which was open and undisturbed. The respondent-plaintiff
failed to discharge the onus. The order of the High Court is held
to be unsustainable and is set aside. The order of the first
appellate court is restored and the suit is dismissed. [Paras 13,
                                                                          B
14] [972-E-G; 973-C]
      M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Bangalore Development
      Authority & Ors. (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR
      454 ; Chhatti Konati Rao & Ors. v. Palle Venkata Subba
      Rao (2010) 14 SCC 316 : [2010] 15 SCR 923
      – relied on.                                                        C

      Dagabai Fakirmahomed v. Sakharam Gavaji & Ors.,
      AIR 1948 BOM 149 ; Wontakal Yalpi Chenabasavana
      Gowd v. Rao Bahadur Y. Mahabaleshwarappa & Ors.
      AIR 1954 SC 337 : [1955] SCR 131 ; M.V.S.
      Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors.,                         D
      AIR 1966 SC 470 : [1966] SCR 628 – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
      AIR 1948 BOM 149               referred to         Para 5
      [1955] SCR 131                 referred to         Para 5           E
      [1966] SCR 628                 referred to         Para 5
      [2015] 11 SCR 454              relied on           Para 13
      [2010] 15 SCR 923              relied on           Para 13
                                                                          F

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1090
of 2008
      From the final Judgment and final Order dated 12.01.2006 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Civil Second   G
Appeal No.657 of 1997
                                     With
      Civil Appeal No.1091 of 2008

                                                                          H
968             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A           Manoj Prasad, N.K. Jain, Sr. Advs., Basava Prabhos P., Prakash
      Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Dubey, Vinod Mehta, Chinmaya Deshpande,
      Vikas K. Singh, Siddharth, T. N. Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
           Puneet Jain, Harsh Jain, Harshit Khanduja, Ms. Pratibha Jain,
      Ms.Prachi Mishra, Rahul Kaushik, Chaitanya, Arjun Garg, Advs. for the
B     Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            NAVIN SINHA, J.
             1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order allowing the plaintiff’s
C     second appeal. The High Court reversed the order of the First Appellate
      Court and restored the order of the Trial Court decreeing the plaintiff’s
      suit for adverse possession.
              2. The suit lands comprise of 4 out of 6 Biswas of land situated in
      Survey No. 493 of Patwari Halka No.76 at Village-Purani Chhabani,
D     Guna. The Original land owners were Mool Chand and Kashi Ram.
      The suit lands were sold to defendant no.9 Urmila Devi by registered
      sale deed dated 11.10.1972. By two separate registered sale deeds dated
      22.08.1989 she sold an area of 3414.4 square feet each to the appellants
      in both the appeals. Possession was handed over and constructions
      raised by them. The plaintiff Matadin then filed Suit No. 45-A/1995 on
E     28.08.1990 claiming adverse possession over the suit lands relying on
      Khasra entries for 1960-1961. The plaintiff also sought a declaration of
      nullity against the sale deeds executed by the original land owners and
      subsequent thereto. The sole plaintiff Matadin expired on 26.05.1994.
      An amendment application was subsequently filed by his legal heirs on
F     21.04.1995 contending that Matadin had come in possession of the suit
      lands after the original land owners Moolchand and Kashi Ram had
      failed to return his bullocks and agricultural implements. The Civil Judge
      Class I, Guna decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had perfected his
      title by continuous, hostile and uninterrupted possession for more than
      12 years adverse to that of the original land owners, and that the sale
G     deeds were a nullity. Regular Civil Appeal 19-A of 1996 preferred by
      the appellants was allowed holding that the Trial court had overlooked
      documentary evidence on record to arrive at an erroneous conclusion of
      adverse possession on basis of oral evidence only. The second appeal
      by the plaintiff was subsequently allowed by the impugned order holding
H
       BRIJESH KUMAR v. SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.                                969
                   [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

that the conclusions of the first appellate court were erroneous, restoring     A
the order decreeing the suit. Thus, the present appeal.
       3. Shri Manoj Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, submitted that the findings of facts by the first appellate court
are final. The High Court in a second appeal ought not to have reappraised
the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, without any finding of        B
perversity. The plaintiff never acquired title by adverse possession as
the original owner sold the lands to Urmila Devi before expiry of twelve
years. The purchaser had come into possession, raised certain
constructions, and resold part of the lands to the appellants who
consequently came into possession also. The original owners had sought
possession from the plaintiff in 1963-1964 also which was declined. The         C
plaintiff never established the origin of his possession. The amendment
of the plaint was an afterthought. The Khasra entries for 1969-1973
show Urmila Devi in possession of the lands. In 1974-1978, the Khasra
entries again show Urmila Devi as the landlord. The Khasra entries for
1960-1961 and 1974-1978 showing possession of the plaintiff were                D
interpolations in red color ink, while the entries in the name of Urmila
Devi after purchase were made in blue color ink. Hitesh Kumar and
Hemraj, the son and nephew respectively, of the plaintiff were clerks in
the collectorate. They were suspended for making false entries, followed
by departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution. The Court
Commissioner had also reported possession having been transferred               E
pursuant to the sale deed. The plaintiff had filed an objection after which
the Court Commissioner had again inspected the disputed land and filed
further report in favour of the appellants. All these have not at all been
considered by the High Court. Reliance was placed on M. Venkatesh
& Ors. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors., (2015) 17 SCC                F
1, to contend that the adverse possession could be proved only when
possession was peaceful, open, continuous and hostile.
     4. Shri N.K. Jain, learned senior counsel, adopted the same
arguments on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 2008.
       5. Shri Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted      G
that the plea of adverse possession was taken in the original plaint. No
new fact was sought to be introduced by way of amendment. Relying
on Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter

                                                                                H
970             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A     referred to as the “Code”), it was submitted that there is a presumption
      with regard to the correctness of the Khasra entries regarding possession
      of the plaintiff. It therefore establishes the foundation of a claim for
      adverse possession. At no point of time, the original land owner filed
      any application for correction under Section 116 of the Code raising any
      dispute. The finding of the appellate court with regard to manipulations
B
      in the Khasra entries, no more survive after their exoneration in the
      departmental proceedings and acquittal in the criminal case. The plaintiff
      was in continuous uninterrupted possession, for over 12 years, hostile to
      the original land owner. The plaintiff was never dispossessed in 1972
      after any sale. Mere execution of a sale deed does not tantamount to
C     dispossession. The claim for possession stated to have been reiterated
      in 1963-1964 by the original land owner confirms the continuous
      uninterrupted hostile possession of the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on
      Dagabai Fakirmahomed vs. Sakharam Gavaji & Ors., AIR 1948
      BOM 149, Wontakal Yalpi Chenabasavana Gowd vs. Rao Bahadur
      Y. Mahabaleshwarappa & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 337, M.V.S.
D
      Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors., AIR 1966 SC
      470, to submit that the onus lay on the defendants to establish that the
      possession of the plaintiff was interrupted at any point of time, to defeat
      the claim for adverse possession and which they failed to do.
              6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
E     The plaintiff in a suit filed in 1990, asserted possession of the lands for
      past 30 years prior to the filing of the suit, relying on the Khasra entries
      for 1960-1961 as the foundation of the claim to adverse possession. The
      nature and origin of the claim for possession was absent in the pleadings.
      In his evidence the respondent deposed that since the original land owner
F     had failed to return his bullocks and agricultural equipments borrowed in
      1958-1959, he had taken possession of the lands in 1960-1961. The original
      plaintiff expired on 26.05.1994. The respondents, who are his legal heirs,
      then filed an application on 21.04.1995 to amend the pleadings to bring it
      in accord with the evidence. If the plaintiff’s possession itself originated
      in 1960-1961 it is difficult to appreciate how the Khasra entries in its
G     name came to be made in the very same year. Section 115 of the Code
      provides that if the Tehsildar finds that a wrong or incorrect entry has
      been made in the land records prepared under Section 114 by an officer
      subordinate to him, he shall direct necessary changes to be made therein
      in red ink after making such enquiry from the person concerned as he
H     may deem fit after due notice. The plaintiff led no evidence whatsoever
       BRIJESH KUMAR v. SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.                                 971
                   [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

when the application for correction in the khasra entry was made and             A
that the original land owner was heard before the corrections were made.
The entries in the name of the purchaser pursuant to the sale deed dated
11.10.1972 are in blue ink. The corrections in the khasra entry, the sheet
anchor of the respondents claim therefore remains unexplained and
doubtful.
                                                                                 B
       7. At this stage, it is crucial to notice the findings of the appellate
court that the son and nephew of the Plaintiff-Matadin were working as
clerks in the collectorate. They were proceeded against departmentally
and in a criminal prosecution regarding the corrections made in red ink
in the Khasra entries incorporating the name of the plaintiff as being
forged and fictitious. The fact that they may have been acquitted in the         C
criminal prosecution on a benefit of doubt, or that exoneration may have
been ordered in the departmental proceeding based on procedural
irregularity, are not considered relevant as findings in a civil suit are to
be based on preponderance of probabilities considering the nature of
evidence available.                                                              D
       8. After purchase of the lands by Urmila Devi, her name was
entered in the Khasra as landlord during 1969-1973 along with possession
as also during 1974-1978. Once it is concluded that the red ink entries
regarding corrections in the Khasra showing possession of the plaintiff
are suspicious, based on fraud and forgery, the recordings in the name           E
of the plaintiff are irrelevant. The name of Urmila Devi has also been
shown in the Khasra entries for 1984-89 in blue ink.
        9. The conclusion of the first appellate court with regard to
possession of the lands being with Urmila Devi after purchase considered
along with the report of the court commissioner, and who subsequently            F
sold it to the appellants on basis of a registered sale deed, in our opinion
called for no interference. The finding that the appellants had admitted
the possession of the plaintiff-respondent on account of the failure of
the original land owners to return his bullocks and agricultural equipments
is held to be perverse.
                                                                                 G
       10. The plaintiff claimed adverse possession from 1960-1961. The
lands were sold to Urmila Devi before the expiry of 12 years on 11.10.1972
and she was put in possession. The plaintiff’s claim of uninterrupted
possession for twelve years was therefore unsustainable as completely
devoid of substance.
                                                                                 H
972             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A            11. The High Court in second appeal arrived at a perverse finding
      on the same evidence that Urmila Devi never acquired possession and
      thus the plaintiff had established adverse possession after twelve years.
      The report of the court commissioner also finds no discussion by the
      High Court. It also failed to deal with the suspicious Khasra entries in
      red ink, claimed by the plaintiff in proof of possession. Likewise, it did
B
      not consider that the origin of the claim of the plaintiff itself never stood
      established in absence of necessary pleadings which was sought to be
      introduced after the plaintiff’s evidence, as an afterthought.
             12. At this juncture it is necessary to notice that in Civil Suit No.
      97-A of 1992 filed by the appellants in Civil Appeal No.1091 of 2008,
C     and who had purchased the lands adjacent to the suit lands from Urmila
      Devi, against Hemraj, the nephew of plaintiff-Matadin, alleging
      encroachment of the lands purchased by him, the suit was decreed, and
      the appeals preferred by Hemraj was dismissed up to this court. The
      conclusion of the High court that there was no evidence with regard to
D     the dispossession of the respondent-plaintiff is clearly unsustainable as
      he never came into possession in view of the clear finding with regard to
      fraud and forgery in the Khasra entries.
               13.Adverse possession is hostile possession by assertion of a hostile
      title in denial of the title of the true owner as held in M.Venkatesh (supra).
E     The respondent had failed to establish peaceful, open and continuous
      possession demonstrating a wrongful ouster of the rightful owner. It
      thus involved question of facts and law. The onus lay on the respondent
      to establish when and how he came into possession, the nature of his
      possession, the factum of possession known and hostile to the other
      parties, continuous possession over 12 years which was open and
F     undisturbed. The respondent was seeking to deny the rights of the true
      owner. The onus therefore lay upon the respondent to establish possession
      as a fact coupled with that it was open, hostile and continuous to the
      knowledge of the true owner. The respondent-plaintiff failed to discharge
      the onus. Reference may also be made to Chatti Konati Rao & Ors.
G     vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316, on adverse
      possession observing as follows :
             “15. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient
             of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into
             possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to
H            the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who
        BRIJESH KUMAR v. SHARDABAI (DEAD) BY LRS.                               973
                    [NAVIN SINHA, J.]

       claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which     A
       he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of
       possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession
       and that possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
       adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to
       defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to
                                                                                B
       clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse
       possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes
       of limitation overriding property rights. The plea of adverse
       possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact
       and law.”
       14. In view of our conclusions, the precedents cited by the              C
respondents do not merit consideration. The order of the High Court is
held to be unsustainable and is set aside. The order of the first appellate
court dated 08.08.1997 is restored and the suit is dismissed.
       15. The appeals are allowed.
                                                                                D

Devika Gujral                                                Appeals allowed.




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H