Delhi District Court
Bhullan Singh (Thorugh L R) vs Ms Scindia Potteries And Seervices Pvt ... on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA DJ 22/21
IN THE MATTER OF:
Bhullan Sing, S/o Tika Ram (deceased)
Through Legal Representatives,
represented by Sh. Arun Kumar (grandson)
R/o Quarter No. 90-91
Scindia Potteries Labour Quarters Complex,
Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023 .....Appellant
Vs.
M/s SCINDIA POTTERIES
& SERVICES PRIVATE LTD
Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023 .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 14.12.2021
Final arguments heard : 09.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/defendant has filed the present appeal u/s. 96 CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, West District, Delhi in Suit No. 6877/16, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the Quarter No. 90, Scindia Potteries, Labour Quarter Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 110023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') was decreed.
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 1 of 45
2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent before the Ld. Trial Court in the suit has been summarised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, and it would suffice to extract the same as under:
"2. The facts necessary are that the plaintiff Company is the owner of huge property at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi by virtue of registered perpetual lease deed dated 18.01.1921. The lease gave the rights of alienation to the then lessee, who alienated the said property in favour of predecessor of the plaintiff Company by virtue of an indenture in 1923. The plaintiff Company was running its pottery factory in a portion of the property and had employed number of persons to work. The Company had also built up large number of quarters for its employees adjoining the Africa Avenue for their residence. In the year 1969-70 the Company was virtually closed and substantial number of workers were retrenched/removed.
3. It is further stated by the plaintiff company that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff company and was retrenched in 1970 and he is presently working in the postal department of Government of India. During his employment with plaintiff Company, the defendant was allotted quarter no. 91. A suit in respect of quarter no. 91 was filed by the plaintiff Company in 1973 and the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 2 of 45 same was decreed on 25.01.1974. Inadvertently, the execution could not be filed within 12 years and it became barred in the year 1986. Being wise with this, the defendant illegally occupied quarter no. 90 (adjacent to quarter no. 91) without their being any right or title. The defendant and his family members are in illegal possession of flat no. 90. Despite requests defendant did not vacate the quarter."
3. The case of the defendant before the Ld. Trial Court in the written statement has been summarised in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, and the same is extracted hereunder:
"4. The original defendant Bhullan Singh filed written statement and stated that the suit is barred by limitation having been filed after 12 years since 1976. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all family members are not made defendants. Suit is under valued as the market value is more than Rs. 50 lacs. The plaintiff was/is never the owner of the suit property. The defendant has become owner by virtue of adverse possession. Rest of the case of the plaintiff has been denied being wrong and incorrect."
4. The following issues were framed in the suit, as mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned judgement, which are extracted as under:
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 3 of 45 "6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed for trial on dated 07.02.2002:-
(1)Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD (2) Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD (3) Whether suit of the plaintiff is correctly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP (4) Whether plaintiff Company is entitled to the decree of possession as prayed for ?OPP (5) Relief.
7. Vide order dated 08.01.2004 an additional issue no. 4-A was also framed as under:-
Issue no. 4-A Whether the defendant and/or his family members have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession? OPD"
5. Both the parties led their respective evidence before the Ld. Trial Court, and, ultimately, the impugned judgement and decree dated 11.11.2021 was passed. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 4 of 45 against the defendant/appellant. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for possession of the suit property.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the defendant/appellant has filed the present appeal.
7. During the course of the appeal proceedings, the parties had also led additional evidence in the matter in respect of the title of the plaintiff/respondent under the concerned perpetual lease.
APPELLANT'S/DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS
8. Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit for possession was based on the plaintiff's title and that the plaintiff/respondent had failed to prove its title. It is submitted that merely because the appellant's defence of adverse possession was held to be not proved, that by itself did not mean that the plaintiff's title to the suit property stood proven. It is submitted that the case of the plaintiff had to stand on its own legs and that the plaintiff could not take advantage of any weakness in the defendant's defence. In this regard, Ld. counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandran Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (2007) 6 SCC 737.
9. It is further submitted that while it had come on the record that the perpetual lease was granted in the name of M/s.RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 5 of 45 Gwalior Potteries Ltd. in 1923, however, the plaintiff could not show what its connection was with the said company and how the lease came to be in the name of the plaintiff from or through M/s. Gwalior Potteries Ltd.
10. Ld. counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had concealed from the Court, the fact that the lease had actually been re-entered by the L&DO. It is submitted that even as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief due to suppression of material facts.
11. Ld. counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision dated 30.12.1998 of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal in case entitled as Gwalior Potteries v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (24) ECR 371 (TRI.-Delhi), 1989 (41) ELT 312 (TRI.-Delhi). It is submitted that this decision would show that, in 1956, the factory of M/s.
Gwalior Potteries Ltd. had become a state owned factory under the Government of Madhya Pradesh, and that the factory was later in 1963 transferred to the MP State Industries Corporation Limited. It is submitted that hence, the claim of the plaintiff/respondent of title to the Scindia Potteries Complex is highly disputed.
12. Ld. counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the suit was time barred. It is submitted that a suit for possession of immovable property based on title ought to be filed within 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to the plaintiff in terms of RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 6 of 45 Article 65 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the present case, the defendant had been able to prove its case of adverse possession through the documentary evidence consisting of the identity documents of the defendant and his family. It is submitted that the documentary evidence led by the defendant would clearly go to show that the defendant had become owner through adverse possession.
13. On this basis, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial Court was bad both in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside, and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
RESPONDENT'S/PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS
14. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts and evidence and has passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the plaintiff/respondent was able to prove his title, whereas the defendant could not prove ownership through adverse possession, and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to the decree of possession.
15. It is submitted that the title of the plaintiff/respondent to the entire premises under the lease in which the suit property in question was situated had already been RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 7 of 45 recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in decision dated 24.11.2015 in Hari Kishan v. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. 2015 SCC Online Del 13584, and decision dated 19.09.2017 in Nathu Ram v. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. in RSA No.225/2017. It is further submitted that the plaintiff, even otherwise, had proved its title through the evidence led in the suit, as well as through the additional evidence led in the appeal.
16. On this basis, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. Both sides have also filed their respective written submissions.
18. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. counsels for the parties and I have perused the record.
DISCUSSION & FINDINGS
19. The contention of the appellant/defendant is essentially two-fold. Firstly, that the plaintiff/respondent had failed to show that it had any right, title or interest in the suit property. Secondly, that the defendant/appellant had become owner by way of adverse possession and thus, the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act.
20. I shall first deal with the first limb of argument of the appellant/defendant with regard to the title of the plaintiff/respondent to the suit property.
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 8 of 45
21. In the appeal proceedings, the appellant/defendant was permitted to lead additional documentary evidence (being, inter alia, letter dated 30.06.1998 from the L&DO, order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.1295/1988, and letter dated 01.08.2013 issued by the L&DO) to show that the L&DO (i.e. the Land & Development Office, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India) had determined the lease in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and had re- entered the premises. These additional documents which were filed in the appeal were admitted by the respondent/plaintiff. As per the notice dated 30.06.1998 from the L&DO to the plaintiff, due to misuse and unauthorised construction on the leased property which was neither removed nor regularised, the L&DO determined the lease and re-entered the premises. The respondent had challenged this determination of the lease vide Civil Writ Petition No. 1295/1988 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and there was a stay which was granted. Vide order dated 25.10.2010 passed in the said writ petition, it was directed that the stay would remain in force for a period of two months from the date of receipt of demand by the respondent and that in the even of non- payment, the interim protection would cease. Subsequently, there was a demand dated 01.08.2013 by the L&DO to the respondent of an amount of Rs. 16,99,62,030/- to be paid within 60 days for regularisation of the breaches and for withdrawal of the re-entry of the premises. It was the case of the appellant/defendant that RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 9 of 45 the respondent/plaintiff had not complied with this demand and as such, the lease stood terminated and hence, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property, and as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
22. In light of the additional documents produced by the appellant/defendant in the appeal, the respondent/plaintiff was also permitted to lead additional evidence in the appeal proceedings. The appellant produced and proved a letter dated 20.05.2024 Ex.RW-2/1 from the office of the L&DO as per which upon certain payments made by the respondent to the L&DO, the order of the L&DO for re- entry into the leased premises stood as withdrawn and the title and right of the respondent under the lease stood restored.
23. Through the additional evidence led in the appeal proceedings in the form of the letter dated 20.05.2024 Ex.RW-2/1 from the L&DO to the respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff has clearly been able to show that it was the lessee under the lease for the premises in which the suit property was situated and that the lease was subsisting. Hence, in so far as the title of the respondent/plaintiff to the suit property is concerned, the plaintiff has clearly been able to show that it was the lessee under the perpetual lease deed granted by the L&DO.
24. Further, there have been various other litigations by the plaintiff for possession against occupants of other quarters in the same Scindia Potteries complex at Sarojini Nagar, RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 10 of 45 New Delhi. In these litigations, similar to the present case, the plaintiff had sought possession on the basis of the perpetual lease deed granted by the L&DO, whereas the occupants sought to contest the suit by disputing the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and also by raising the plea of having become owners by adverse possession, similar to the plea as raised by the defendant in the present case.
25. In the decision dated 24.11.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA No. 404/2015 entitled as Hari Kishan v. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13584, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking possession of Quarter No.74 in the Scindia Potteries Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. In the said case, similar to the present case, the defendant had disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and had also raised the defence that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. In Hari Kishan (supra), with regard to the title of the plaintiff to the premises in question, the Hon'ble High Court held as under:
"9. Before this Court, the submission of counsel for the appellant is twofold. Learned counsel, firstly, submits that the respondent/plaintiff had not been able to establish its ownership in respect of the suit property. Learned counsel submits that the perpetual lease deed dated 18.01.1921 was executed by the Secretary to the Govt. of India in favour of RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 11 of 45 Development Corporation of India, which was duly registered on 04.04.1921 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The said lease deed in Ex. PW-2/1. Learned counsel submits that the only document produced by the plaintiff to claim ownership was the letter dated 31.10.1962 Ex. PW-1/1 issued by the L&DO in favour of the plaintiff showing change of name of the plaintiff company from Gwalior Potteries Pvt. Ltd. to Scindia Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Admittedly, no other document of ownership in favour of the plaintiff company in respect of the suit property was produced.
10. I do not find any merit in this submission. The Crown Grant was made in favour of Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and it did not require any formal indenture being crated since it was a Crown Grant. In any event, there is a registered perpetual lease Ex. PW-2/1. The communication dated 31.10.1962 Ex. PW-1/1 recognises the plaintiff company as the successor of Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. In the face of the said communication Ex. PW-1/1 read with the earlier grant, and in view of the provisions of Government Grant Act, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to challenge the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff qua the suit property. The perpetual lease stands mutated in the name of the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 12 of 45 respondent. There is no mandatory requirement in law, that a fresh lease should have been executed in favour of the respondent."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
26. Thus, the title of the plaintiff to the entire premises under the perpetual lease deed by the L&DO in favour of the plaintiff was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court in Hari Kishan (supra).
27. Similarly, in the decision dated 18.11.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA No. 86/2016 entitled as Sukhbir Singh v. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6053, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking possession of Quarter No. 36 in the Scindia Potteries Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. In the said case also, the defendant had sought to challenge the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and also raised the defence that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. In Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Hon'ble High Court took note of the decision in Hari Kishan (supra) to recognise the title of the plaintiff to the complex, as under:
"16. In RSA No. 404/2015, subject matter of which was Quarter No. 74, the question of ownership of M/s. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the said complex was examined. M/s. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. was held to be owner observing as under:RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 13 of 45 "I do not find any merit in this submission. The Crown Grant was made in favour of Gwalior Potteris (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and it did not require any formal indenture being created since it was a Crown Grant. In any event, there is a registered perpetual lease Ex.
PW-2/1. The communication dated 31.10.1962 Ex. PW-1/1 recognizes the plaintiff company as the successor of Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. In the face of the said communication Ex. PW-1/1 read with the earlier grant, and in view of the provisions of Government Grant Act, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to challenge the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff qua the suit property. The perpetual lease stands mutated in the name of the respondent. There is no mandatory requirement in law, that a fresh lease should have been executed in favour of the respondent.""
28. Similarly, in the decision dated 19.09.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA No. 225/2017 entitled as Nathu Ram v. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking possession of Quarter No. 68 in the Scindia Potteries Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. In the said case also, the defendant had similarly challenged the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and had raised the defence of having become RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 14 of 45 owner by way of adverse possession. In Nathu Ram (supra), the ld. first appellate court had relied upon the decision in Hari Kishan (supra), to recognise the title of the plaintiff to the entire premises which was the subject matter of the perpetual lease, and this was upheld in the second appeal by the Hon'ble High Court, and it was held that the decision in Hari Kishan (supra) was relevant under section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as proof of title to immoveable property. The relevant portion of the decision in Nathu Ram (supra) is extracted hereunder:
"11. The first appellate court has for allowing of the appeal and setting aside of the judgment of the trial court denying the decree for possession to the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.11.2015 in RSA No.404/2015 titled as Hari Kishan Vs. M/s. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt.
Ltd. and as per which judgment the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the entire property which was the subject matter of the Perpetual Lease dated 18.1.1921 and Indenture dated 1.2.1923. The relevant para 9 of the judgment in the case of Hari Kishan (supra) reads as under:-
"9. I do not find any merit in this submission. The Crown Grant was made in favour of Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. and it did not require any formal indenture RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 15 of 45 being created since it was a Crown Grant. In any event, there is a registered perpetual lease Ex. PW-2/1. The communication dated 31.10.1962 Ex. PW1/1 recognises the plaintiff company as the successor of Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. In the face of the said communication Ex. PW1/1 read with the earlier grant, and in view of the provisions of Government Grant Act, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to challenge the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff qua the suit property. The perpetual lease stands mutated in the name of the respondent. There is no mandatory requirement in law, that a fresh lease should have been executed in favour of the respondent."
12. The first appellate court has rightly relied upon the judgment in RSA No. 404/2015 as judgment as to title of an immovable property, though not between parties to the present/subject suit, is relevant as per Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the judgments of the Supreme Court on Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act. I have accordingly so held in the judgment in the case of Bhagwat Prasad Aggarwal Vs. Hans Raj Banga (Deceased) and Anr. (2012) 190 DLT 203 and the relevant para 8 of which judgment reads as under:-
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 16 of 45 "8. I may note that though a judgment may not be inter parties and yet the same is binding on a person who is not a party to the earlier litigation when the issue of title is decided in the earlier litigation. Two Division Benches of the Supreme Court, of four Judges and three Judges, in the cases of Sital Das Vs. Sant Ram and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 606 and Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 379 have so held that a judgment which holds that a person is an owner, such a judgment is very much admissible in evidence to show assertion of title inasmuch as the judgment is a transaction pertaining to the subject matter of the dispute under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In my opinion, this is another reason to hold that respondent No.1/plaintiff is owner of the subject property, and the challenge which is led by the appellant/objector is without any basis.""
(Emphasis supplied by me)
29. Thus, the title of the plaintiff under the perpetual lease deed from the L&DO in its favour for the entire premises of the Scindia Potteries complex has been recognised by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid decisions. Crucially, as held by the Hon'ble High Court in Nathu RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 17 of 45 Ram (supra), the decision in Hari Kishan (supra) was relevant under section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as proof of title to immoveable property.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is called for with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court holding that the plaintiff/respondent had been able to show its title to the suit property based on the perpetual lease deed granted in its favour by the L&DO.
31. Now, coming to the second limb of the appellant's/defendant's argument that the suit was barred by limitation as the defendant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
32. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court rejecting the defendant's claim of ownership by adverse possession is extracted hereunder:
"15. ... ... ...
My issue wise findings are as under:-ISSUE NO. 4-A AND ISSUE NO. 1
4-A-"Whether the defendant and/or his family members have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession?OPD"
"1. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD".RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 18 of 45
16. Both the issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected. Onus of proving both these issues has been on the defendant. The defendant has stated in his written statement that they became the owner of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession. The defendant further stated that they are in possession of suit property since 1976 and that the suit filed by the plaintiff Company in the year 2001 is time barred. To prove their possession, the defendants have relied on the bank passbook Ex. DW1/A and the identity card of defendant Ex. DW1/B, electrol card Ex. DW1/C, affidavit of Ram Kali, wife of defendant Bhullan Mark A, Mark B is identity card issued by Directorate of Employments. Mark C-the particulars of service muster of defendant. On the basis of these documents, defendant is claiming adverse possession.
17. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendant has miserably failed to prove the adverse possession as the required conditions does not stand fulfilled. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on 2007 (97) DRJ 83 (DB), (2007) 6 SCC 100.
18. The legal position regarding the essentials to be established for acquisition of title by adverse possession are well settled by a long line of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in the country. Adverse possession it is well settled, RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 19 of 45 implies that it commenced in wrong and is maintained against right. The very concept underlying adverse possession is that the person in possession must claim to be so of right as against the true owner. It must be nec vi, nec claim, nec precario. It must be adequate in continuity and publicity to the extent of showing that it is averse to the competitor. It must be hostile and under a claim or color of title. It must be actual, open, uninterrupted notorious, exclusive and continuous and it must run over the entire statutory period of 12 years. Any person who bases his claim to title by adverse possession should be hostile to the real owner with the attributes of notoriety, exclusivity and continuity over the statutory period.
19. In S. M. Karim vs. Mst. Bibi Skina, Air 1964 SC 1254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and that a plea is required to at least show as to when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected by the same can be determined.
20. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil and Others Vs. Balwant @Balasahet Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs & heirs etc. AIR 1995 Supreme Court 895, their lordships described the meaning of the expression RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 20 of 45 adverse possession and the pre-requisite for proving the same in the following words:
"Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run from the date of the defendant's interest becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Adverse possession means a hostile assertion i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. Under Article 6, burden is on the defendants to prove affirmatively. A person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed. In deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person constitute adverse possession, regard must be had to the animus of the person doing those acts, which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case. The person who bases title on the adverse possession, therefore, must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed".RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 21 of 45
21. In Konda lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, 2002 (3) SCC 258 the apex court declared that onus of proof to establish acquisition of title by prescription lies on the party who makes any such assertion. The court further held that time for the purpose of adverse possession, would start running from the date, both, the actual possession and assertion of title, are shown to exist. The court explained that mere possession of land, however long it may be, would not ripen into title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner and that an assertion of title by adverse to the title of clear and unequivocal through, not necessarily addressed to the real owner. Consequently, where at the commencement of the possession there is no animus possidendi, the period relevant for the plea of adverse possession commences from the date when both, the actual possession and assertion of title by the possessor, are shown to exist. In the peculiar facts of the case before their lordship it was held that the defendants had pleaded adverse possession for the first time only in the written statement filed in the suit the court accordingly excluded the period till the date of the filing of the written statement from reckoning on the ground that there was no animus possedendi during the said period nor had the defendant claimed any title to the land in dispute adverse to the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 22 of 45 defendant. The following passage is in this connection apposite:
"Mere possession of the land, however long it may be, would not ripen into possessory title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the tittle of the true owner. It I true that assertion of title to the land in dispute by the possessor would I an appropriate case be sufficient indication of the animus possidendi to hold adverse to the title of the true owner. But such an assertion of title must be clear and unequivocal through it need not be addressed tothe real owner. For reckoning the statutory period to perfect title by prescription both the possession as well as the animus possidendi must be shown to exist. Where, however, at the commencement of the possession there is no animus possidendi, the period for the purpose of reckoning adverse possession will commence from the date when both, the actual possession and assertion of title by the possessor are shown to exist".
22. To the same effect is the decision of Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and others, 2004 (910) SCC 779 where the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 23 of 45 court summed up to legal position in the following passage:
"It is well settled principle" that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with the wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. Physical fact of exclusive, hostile and the animus possedendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since, he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 24 of 45 establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession".
23. In T. Anjanappa and others v. Somalingappa and another, 2006(7) SCC 750 the Supreme Court laid emphasis on the animus of the person in possession for determining whether the same was adverse to the true owner and reiterated the legal principles that are applicable in cases involving adverse possession.
24. In three single bench decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Devi Charan & another V. Rampat Singh & Ors, 65, (1997) DLT 493: 1997 (40) DRJ 556, Harbans kaur & Ors. Vs. Bola Nath & Anr. 57 (1994) DLT 101, Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) R.N. Dawar V. Shri Ganga Saran Dhama, DRJ 1992 (24) followed the same line of reasoning.
25. To sum up in a case where the defendants claim title by adverse possession, the following broad principles must beapplied while examining any such plea:
(1) Onus to prove the question of title by adverse possession is on the party who makes such a claim.RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 25 of 45 (2) Mere long possession of the land is not enough. What is important is whether the possessor had the animus possidendi to hod the land adverse to the title of the true owner.
(3) The period of limitation starts running from the date both actual possession and assertion of title are shown to exist.
(4) The assertion of title adverse to the true owner must be clear and unequivocal, though not necessarily addressed to the real owner.
(5) The party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is"nec vi, nec clamnec precario".
(6) The party claiming title by adverse possession must make clear averments to that effect and explain as to when he entered into the possession of the property and when the possession became adverse.
26. DW-3 Sh. Rajesh in his cross-examination has shown complete ignorance to the material facts like he does not know if for the property in question house tax is paid in a year and lease money paid twice in a year. He further did not know if the plaintiff Company pays the lease money and the house tax in the property in question including the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 26 of 45 suit quarter. DW-3 did not know the meaning of the adverse possession. He stated that his grandfather had set up adverse possession against the plaintiff Company. He did not know what can be the market value of the suit property. DW-3, his brother and mother were not aware of this case in the year 2001. They came to know on the demise of their grandfather. DW-3 did not know anything about law of limitation. He further could not say anything about the last sentence in para no. 13 of his affidavit Ex. DW3/1. DW-3 has mentioned about some case in Madhya Pradesh against the plaintiff Company as mentioned in para no. 16 of his affidavit. It is hearsay based. It has no relevance with this case. DW-3 has denied the suggestion that prior to filing of the written statement in the present case, neither his father nor his grandfather ever set up the case of adverse possession.
27. Similarly, DW-4 Shyam Sunder also showed ignorance to most of the questions asked from him during his cross-examination. He deposed that his grandfather had claimed ownership of the suit quarter. He did not know if the land under the quarter in question is held on lease. He did not know who is the lessee of the land under the suit quarter. The cross-examination of DW-4 is on the same lines as that of DW-3 and he has also answered in the same tone.
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 27 of 45
28. From the cross-examination of DW-3 & DW-4, it has not been proved that the grandfather of DW-3 & DW-4 or after him their father had the animus possidendi to hold the suit premises adverse to the title of the true owner and that their possession was nec vi nec clamnec precario. The document Ex. DW1/A, Ex. DW1/B, Ex. DW1/C, Mark A to Mark C only prove their possession over the suit property. These documents does not prove that the original defendant and thereafter father of DW-3 & DW-4 and thereafter they had the animus to hold the suit property as owners in denial of the title of the true owner. During cross-examination, DW-3 & DW-4 have deposed that they or their predecessor never paid any lease rent or house tax at any point of time. This has proved that neither the defendant nor his successors had held the suit property as its owners.
29. In view of the above, the defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession. DW-3 & DW-4 have failed to prove that their predecessors- in-interest were in adverse possession of the suit property as against the true owner i.e. the plaintiff Company.
30. So far as issue of limitation is concerned, article 65 of Schedule to Limitation Act prescribes that for possession of immovable property or any RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 28 of 45 interest therein based on title, the limitation of 12 years begins to run from the date of the A defendant's interest becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant was required to satisfy that the plaintiff filed the present suit after 12 years from the date when their interest became adverse to the plaintiff and on which date it became adverse and further to satisfy that from the said date plaintiff filed the suit after 12 years.
31. From the evidence led by the defendants, it has not been proved as to on which date defendants set up plea of adverse possession. It was only for the first time when defendant Bhullar Singh had taken plea of adverse possession in the written statement.
32. In view of the findings on issue no. 4-A, it is held that defendants have failed to prove that suit of the plaintiff is time barred. Therefore, issue no. 4-A and issue no. 1 are accordingly decided against the defendants and in favour of plaintiff Company."
33. I have carefully considered the record, and I would agree with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the appellant/defendant has not been able to prove his ownership by way of adverse possession.
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 29 of 45
34. As correctly held by the Ld. Trial Court, mere possession for a long period would not necessarily mean that the possession was adverse to the true owner.
35. In Hari Kishan (supra), similar to the present case, the defendant therein had also raised the plea of adverse possession, and the same was rejected, in the following manner:
"11. The next submission of counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had been able to establish its peaceful occupation of the suit premises since 1976 - as accepted by the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff only on 31.07.2002 and was barred by limitation and the appellant had become the owner of the suit premises by adverse possession.
12. The plea of adverse possession has been exhaustively considered and dealt with by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The findings returned by both the courts below are consistent and concurrent and are premised on the evidence led by the parties. This court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact if they are premised on the evidence brought on record, by applying the law, unless it is pointed out that there is a perversity in the said findings.RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 30 of 45
13. The Trial Court while dealing with the said issue, inter alia, took note of the cross examination of the defendants witness DW-1 recorded on 04.01.2012, when he stated that he did not know who is the owner of Scindia Pottery Complex. He also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff company was the owner of the property in dispute. He failed to state as to who was the owner of the property in dispute prior to his coming into possession. The Trial Court observed that for the defendant to succeed in his plea of adverse possession, he has to show that his possession was hostile to the true owner. The Trial Court took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, AIR 2007 SC 1753, wherein the Supreme Court has observed:
"There must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 31 of 45 conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence. While dealing with the aspect of intention in the Adverse possession law, it is important to understand its nuances from varied angles.
A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has been noticed by this Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India [(2004) 10 SCC 779] in the following terms: "Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is CS No. 144/10 16 not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.
Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 32 of 45 defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession"
It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity to the paper owner.
Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.
New Paradigm to Limitation Act: The law in this behalf has undergone a change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit that he had title and possession of the land, whereas in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the legal position has underwent complete change insofar as the onus is concerned: once a party proves RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 33 of 45 its title, the onus of proof would be on the other party to prove claims of title by adverse possession. The ingredients of adverse possession have succinctly been stated by this Court in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254] in the following terms: "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found."
See also M. Durai v. Madhu 2007 (2) SCALE 309] The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this Court in Saroop Singh v. Banto [(2005) 8 SCC 330] stating:
"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak)".
14. The Trial Court also took note of the judgment of this Court in Poonam Sharma v. Prem NathAnand Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in Regular First Appeal No. 74/2005 decided on 11.01.2012, wherein reliance had been placed on L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229. This Court in Poonam Sharma (supra) had observed:
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 34 of 45 "17. The legal position is no doubt well settled. To establish a claim of title by prescription, that is, adverse possession for 12 years or more, the possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years. It is also well settled that long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession if it was either permissive possession or possession without animus possidendi............."
15. Notice was taken on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the concept of adverse possession contemplates hostile possession, i.e. possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the true owner. Therefore, a person who claims title by adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. Reliance was also placed on Annasahed Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwani, (1995) 2 SCC 543.
16. The Trial Court, after referring the aforesaid decisions, observed as follows:
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 35 of 45 "20) In the present case as well it raised the clear presumption that if the defendant are not sure who is the true owner the question of his being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the true owner do not arise.
The witness also deposed on oath that he do not remember what the words 'Adverse Possession' stands for & he stated that he assumed himself to be owner of the property in question since 1974-1975. The witness deposed that he has no knowledge that Scindia Potteries pays property tax in respect of the leased property to the Government. He further stated that he never attempted to pay any property tax no tender the same to the authorities. The witness is not even aware of the fact the NDMC leved property tax on the property in question. It is clear that defendant is not paying any property tax or other tax in respect fo the suit property. The testimony of DW-2 is also on the lines of DW-1 & he also could not comprehend the meaning of the term 'adverse possession, cause of action & locus standi' used in his affidavit during cross examination. He clearly & categorically deposed on oath that his father claimed ownership of the suit property but he has not purchased from any one & also stated that he had not claimed any RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 36 of 45 right or title or interest in the suit property as his father still alive & he is living with his father. The witness also could not tell that the suit quarter is a part assessed to house tax by NDMC. The witness is not aware about the property being tax by NDMC or the plaintiff company being paying the property tax".
17. The First Appellate Court has concurred with this finding. Had the appellant been openly exercising rights of ownership over the suit property, he would have been so representing himself before the municipal authorities and discharging the obligation to pay municipal taxes. He has not done the same, as is evident from the above extracted discussion.
18. The aforesaid discussion certainly cannot be said to result in a patently perverse finding. Consequently, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
36. Similarly, in Sukhbir Singh (supra) also, the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant therein was also rejected by the Hon'ble High Court in the following manner:
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 37 of 45 "17. It has already been noted that there was not a whisper in the written statement regarding his claim of ownership by way of adverse possession. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that long duration of possession will not automatically assign the ownership by way of adverse possession as held in the decision of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi dated December 06, 2006 in RFA 563-
64/2006 titled Mohan Singh Kohli v. Brij Bhushan Anand 2007 (97) DRJ 83 (DB) wherein it was held as under:
"To sum up in a case where the defendants claim title by adverse possession, the following broad principles must be applied while examining any such plea:
(1) Onus to prove the question of title by adverse possession is on the party who make such a claim.
(2) Mere long possession of the land is not enough. What is important is whether the possessor had the animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner.
(3) The period of limitation starts running from the date both actual possession and assertion of title are shown to exist.RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 38 of 45 (4) The assertion of title adverse to the true owner must be clear and unequivocal, though not necessarily addressed to the real owner.
(5) The party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clamnec precario".
(6) The party claiming title by adverse possession must make clear averments to that effect and explain as to when he entered into the possession of the property and when the possession became adverse."
18. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in view of the documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant showing his occupation since 1979 when the caste certificate was issued on the said address the suit being filed on July 19, 2001 was barred by limitation. Hence he became owner of the same by way of adverse possession. In this respect it is suffice to note that the plaintiff has pleaded having acquired knowledge of the unauthorised possession of the appellant in the year 1991 and the suit has been filed within the period of limitation. There is no evidence led on behalf of the appellant/respondent that his occupation in the suit property since 1965 (as per para 7 of the written statement) or 1978 (as discussed in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment) was within the knowledge RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 39 of 45 of the respondent/plaintiff company. It is not disputed that the factory closed somewhere in 1969- 1970. The defendant was not even an employee of M/s. Scindia Potteries & Services Pvt. Ltd. at any point of time. He has failed to lead any evidence as to when and in what capacity he occupied Quarter No. 36, Scindia Potteries, Labour Quarters Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi or thereafter he ever made his possession known to the real owner.
19. Since the limitation starts running from the date when actual possession as well assertion of title adverse to the real owner are shown to exist and the assertion to title adverse to the real owner has to be proved by clear and unequivocal assertion which are not pleaded in the written statement. It has been rightly held by the learned First Appellate Court that mere long duration of the possession of the deceased in the suit premises will not assign ownership by way of adverse possession in favour of his legal heirs.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the First Appellate Court whereby the finding on the issue No. (i) was reversed and in view of the favourable finding in favour of the respondent/plaintiff company by the learned Trial Court, on the remaining issues, a decree of possession was passed RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 40 of 45 in respect of Quarter No. 36, Scindia Potteries, Labour Quarters Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi.
21. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
37. Now, coming to the facts of the present case. In his defence in the written statement, the defendant denied any title of the plaintiff to the suit property and pleaded ownership through adverse possession. However, although the defendant pleaded in the written statement that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, however, the defendant did not state as to who was the true owner against whom the defendant was claiming adverse possession. Since the defendant had already denied any title of the plaintiff to the suit property, hence, there was no question of any adverse possession against the plaintiff. The defendant did not even state anything about the possession being adverse to the L&DO. In these facts, the present case is similar to the case in Hari Kishan (supra) in which also the defendant therein was not sure as to who was the true owner of the property in question. Hence, even in the present case, when the defendant himself did not even state as to who was the true owner of the property against whom the possession was adverse, there is no question of denying the title of the true owner.
38. Further, although the defendant had stated in his written statement dated 19.11.2001 that he and his father had been RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 41 of 45 in continuous possession of the suit property since last 25 years, however, there is nothing stated as to how the defendant or his family came into possession of the suit property. There are also no details or material particulars given by the defendant as to how the defendant and his family were claiming ownership which was hostile to the real owner. Similarly, there is no evidence led by the defendant to show that any title hostile to the real owner was ever claimed by the defendant or his family. As correctly held by the Ld. Trial Court, the documents of identity of the defendant and his family showing the address as that of the suit property would at best only show that the defendant and his family were residing and were in possession of the suit property, however, these documents would not go to show that the defendant and his family were claiming ownership which was hostile to the real owner.
39. In support of the plea of adverse possession, the legal representatives of the defendant, Sh. Rajesh and Sh. Shyam Sunder, being the grandsons of the late defendant, had examined themselves as DW-3 and DW-4, respectively. A perusal of the evidence led by both these witnesses DW-3 and DW-4, in their examination-in-chief and cross-examination, shows that these witnesses have nowhere deposed as to how the original defendant, i.e. their grandfather, was in adverse possession or had set up a title adverse to the true owner. These witnesses do not even state as to who was the true owner against whom the RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 42 of 45 adverse title was claimed or as to when the title hostile to the true owner was claimed by the defendant. DW-3 also deposed that he did not know whether his grandfather of his father had paid the lease rent or the house tax to the concerned authority. I have carefully considered the evidence of DW-3 and DW-4 from the suit record, and I have also considered the discussion of the evidence of these witnesses by the Ld. Trial Court in paragraphs 26 to 28 of the impugned judgment, and would agree with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court that from the evidence of DW-3 and DW-4 it was not proved that the original defendant, i.e. the grandfather of these witnesses, had held the suit premises by claiming title adverse to that of the true owner.
40. Crucially, DW-3 deposed in his cross-examination that he did not know that the suit property was assessed to house tax or that the plaintiff was paying the house tax in respect of the suit property. DW-3 further deposed that he did not know whether his grandfather or father either attempted to pay or paid the lease money or the house tax to the concerned authority. This only goes to show that the defendant or his family could not have been openly exercising rights of ownership over the suit property. These facts are also similar to the facts in the case of Hari Kishan (supra) in which also the defendant therein was unaware of the property tax being levied on the property and it was clear that the defendant was not paying any municipal taxes to the municipal authorities. In these facts, RCA DJ 22/21 BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 43 of 45 the Hon'ble High Court had held in Hari Kishan (supra) that: "Had the appellant been openly exercising rights of ownership over the suit property, he would have been so representing himself before the municipal authorities and discharging the obligation to pay municipal taxes."
41. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I would agree with the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the defendant had failed to prove that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. The defendant having failed to show adverse possession, there is no question of the suit being barred by limitation under Article 65 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act as per which the limitation period of 12 years would start running only from the date when the possession became adverse to the real owner.
42. Thus, the rejection by the Ld. Trial Court of the defendant's defence of ownership by adverse possession also does not call for any interference.
DECISION
43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
44. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear own costs in the appeal.
45. Let the decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
RCA DJ 22/21BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 44 of 45
46. Let a certified copy of this judgment be communicated to the Ld. Trial Court.
47. Let the Trial Court Record be returned to the Ld. Trial Court.
48. File be consigned to record room after due compliances.
Digitally
signed by
SATYABRATA
SATYABRATA PANDA
PANDA Date:
2025.06.05
17:19:23
+0530
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/05.06.2025
RCA DJ 22/21
BHULLAN SINGH V. SCINDIA POTTERIES AND SERVICE PVT LTD. Page No. 45 of 45