Delhi District Court
Daya Ram vs Ms Scindia Poteries Servcies Private ... on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MR. SATYABRATA PANDA, DJ-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCA DJ 5209/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Daya Ram
S/o Sh. Braham Chand
R/o Quarter No. 65,
Scindia Potteries
Labour Quarters Complex,
Sanojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023 ......Appellant
Vs.
M/s SCINDIA POTTERIES
& SERVICES PRIVATE LTD
Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023 .....Respondent
Date of Institution: 24.09.2014
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 22.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Central-05, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 222/12, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the Quarter No. 65, Scindia Potteries, Labour Quarter Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi 110023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') was decreed.
2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in the suit before the Ld. Trial Court has been summarised in paragraphs 2 to 5 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 1 of 39 of the impugned judgment, and it would suffice to extract the same as under:
"2. The brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are that plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023. Originally it was incorporated as the Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Ltd., and later on the name was changed to Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd. and then to Scindia Potteries Ltd. then to Scindia Potteries and Services Ltd. and finally to Scindia Potteries Private Ltd. It is further submitted that Sh. P.K.Ram is the Assistant Law Officer of the plaintiff Company and he has been authorized to sign, verify and institute the present suit by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Resolution dated 28 April, 1995 passed by the plaintiff company. Shri P.K. Ram as such has signed, verified and instituted the present suit on behalf of the Plaintiff Company. It is further submitted that the plaintiff company is the owner of a huge property at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, by virtue of the perpetual lease deed dated 18 January, 1921 which is a duly registered document with the Sub- Registrar, Delhi. The original Lease Deed of 1921 was obtained by Development Corporation of India Ltd. on the terms and conditions RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 2 of 39 incorporated in the said Lease and one of the clauses of the said Lease reads as under:
"(11) The Lessee shall upon every assignment, or transfer of the said premises hereby demise or any part thereof or within one calender month thereafter deliver a notice of such assignment or transfer of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi or such officer or body as the Governor-General in council may authorize in the behalf setting forth the names and description of the parties thereto and the particulars andeffect thereof, and all such assignees and transferees and the heirs of the Lesees shall be bound by all the covenants and conditions herein contained and be answerable in all respects therefor."
3. It is further submitted that the Lease Deed dated 18" January, 1921 was a perpetual lease and it gave the rights of alienation of the said property to the then Lessee who alienated the said property in lavour of (predecessor of) the plaintiff company by virtue of an indenture in 1923. It is further submitted that the above said property of the plaintiff company was sought to be acquired by the Delhi Administration. However, vide notification dated 5th February, 1999 bearing No. F.9 (106)/97/L&B/LA/15387 published in the Delhi Gazette, the said entire land forming part RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 3 of 39 of Khasra No. 436 admeasuring 147 Bighas in Nazul Estate by the name Arkpur Bagh Mochi was denotified and the Plaintiff company, thus, continues to be the owner of the said entire property. It is further submitted that the Company was running its Pottery Factory in a portion of the said property and had employed number of persons to work in the said factory.
4. It is further submitted that the plaintiff company had also built a large number of worker's quarters adjoining the Africa Avenue to allot them to its workers for their residence. The plaintiff company used to give the said labour quarters for use as residence to variousworkers during the time they were in service/ employment of the Plaintiff Company. It is further submitted that in the year 1969-70, the factory of the Plaintiff Company was virtually closed and a substantial number of workers working therein retrenched/removed.
5. It is further submitted that the Defendant along with his family members has illegally and unauthorizedly occupied the Quarter No. 65 Scindia Potteries Complex, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi sometime in the year 1993. The Defendant has been called upon by the Plaintiff Company several times to vacate the said quarter and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff Company but the RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 4 of 39 defendant did not pay any heed to the demands of the Plaintiff Company, hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff."
3. The defence taken by the defendant/appellant before the Ld. Trial Court in the written statement has been summarised in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, and the same is extracted hereunder:
"6. On the other hand the defendant in his WS has contended that defendant has been living and is in possession of the suit premises for the last more than 30 years and he is the exclusive owner of the suit premises. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit. It is further submitted that in the year 1970-71, the father of the defendant had built a small house on a vacant peace of land on a vacant piece of land on over which defendant was working in Delhi Municipal Corporation as Gardner(Mali) and he died about 15 years ago in the suit premises and the defendant has also been living in suit premises for the last more than 30 years and up till now nobody has challenged the ownership of the defendant over the suit premises and thus the defendant is owner of the suit premises by adverse possession. Further the defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff which are made in his plaint and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed."
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 5 of 39
4. The following issues were framed in the suit as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgement, which is extracted hereunder:
"8. From the pleading of the parties following issues were framed vide order dt. 24-08-2004.
i) Whether the suit has been instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiff company? OPP
ii) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property? OPP
iii) Whether the defendant has unauthorisedly occupied the suit property in the year 1993? OPP
iv) Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession?
OPD
v) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of action? OPDvi) Whether the market value of the suit property is more than three lakhs? OPD
vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of possession in respect of suit property? OPP
viii) Relief"
5. Both the parties led their respective evidence before the Ld. Trial Court, and, ultimately, the impugned judgement RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 6 of 39 and decree dated 22.08.2014 was passed. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and 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.
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 7 of 39
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. 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 8 of 39 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant became adverse to the plaintiff in terms of the 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, such as the caste certificate, ration card, election ID card, passport etc. 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.
RESPONDENT'S/PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS
13. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the 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 reasoned order 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.
14. 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 recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in decision dated 24.11.2015 in Hari Kishan v. Scindia Potteries & RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 9 of 39 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.
15. Both sides have also filed their respective written submissions.
16. I have considered the submissions of ld. counsels for the parties and I have perused the record.
DISCUSSION & FINDINGS
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 10 of 39 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 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.
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 11 of 39
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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, 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 12 of 39 plea of having become owners by adverse possession, similar to the plea as raised by the defendant in the present case.
23. 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 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. RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 13 of 39 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 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) RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 14 of 39
24. 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).
25. 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:
"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, RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 15 of 39 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.""
26. 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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 16 of 39 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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 17 of 39 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:-
"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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 18 of 39 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)
27. 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 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.
28. 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 19 of 39 to the suit property based on the perpetual lease deed granted in its favour by the L&DO.
29. 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.
30. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court rejecting the defendant's claim of ownership by adverse possession is extracted hereunder:
"32. Issue No. 4 Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession? OPD Before delving on this issue it is worthwhile to discuss the law on the adverse possession. A 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 establish RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 20 of 39 all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
33. It is well-recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action. Under the Limitation Act, 1963, once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession.
In Annakili vs A. Vedanayagam & Ors- AIR 2008 SC 346, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the claim by adverse possession has two elements: (1) the possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and (2) the defendant must RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 21 of 39 continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession for a period of more than 12 years without anything more do not ripen into a title.
34. As regards the law on adverse possession, the decision in P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma- AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1753, is worth noting, which is as under:
".......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 (willul) 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, RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 22 of 39 like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence.
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 is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of continuous and wilful neglect but also on account of possessor's positive intent to dispossess Therefore, it is important to take into account before stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the paper-owner of the property."
In the present case, the defendant has neither led any evidence nor otherwise proved the 'Animus possidendi' and other ingredients, as discussed herein RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 23 of 39 above, to establish his ownership by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 24 of 39 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.
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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 25 of 39 (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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 26 of 39 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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 27 of 39 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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 28 of 39 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:
"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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 29 of 39 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:
"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' RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 30 of 39 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 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) RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 31 of 39
34. 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:
"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.
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 32 of 39 (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."
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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 33 of 39 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 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 34 of 39 finding in favour of the respondent/plaintiff company by the learned Trial Court, on the remaining issues, a decree of possession was passed 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)
35. Now, coming to the facts of the present case. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that it was the owner of the entire premises under the perpetual lease deed dated 18.01.1921. In response, the defendant stated in paragraph 3 of the reply on merits portion of his written statement that this was not admitted for want of knowledge. Thus, the defendant denied any knowledge of the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. Further, 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. As already mentioned, the defendant had already stated that he had no knowledge about the title of the plaintiff, 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 RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 35 of 39 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.
36. Further, although the defendant had stated in his written statement that his father had come into the property in 1970-71 and built a small house on a vacant plot, however, there is nothing stated as to how the defendant's father came into possession of the suit property. There are also no details or material particulars given by the defendant as to how the defendant's father or the defendant was 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 father. 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 would not go to show that the defendant and his family were claiming ownership which was hostile to the real owner.
37. Further, in the present case, although the defendant set up the defence of adverse possession in the written statement as well as in his affidavit in examination-in-chief, however, during his cross-examination, the defendant as DW-1 deposed that he did not understand what was meant by adverse possession. Crucially, the defendant also RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 36 of 39 deposed that he could not tell who had set up adverse possession regarding the suit property for the first time. He has further deposed that he did not know that in the written statement he had claimed ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession in his name. He further deposed that since he did not understand the meaning of adverse possession he could not say as to when for the first time he claimed adverse possession in respect of the suit property. Thus, the defendant also could not depose as to when the ownership hostile to the real owner was claimed by the defendant or his father. Thus, the defence of the defendant of adverse possession cannot be sustained.
38. Crucially, the defendant 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 year after year. The defendant further deposed that neither he nor his father nor his brother either attempted to pay or paid the lease money to the L&DO or the house tax. 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, the Hon'ble High Court had held in Hari Kishan (supra) that: "Had the appellant been openly exercising rights of RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 37 of 39 ownership over the suit property, he would have been so representing himself before the municipal authorities and discharging the obligation to pay municipal taxes."
39. 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.
40. 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
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
42. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear own costs in the appeal.
43. Let the decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.
44. Let a certified copy of this judgment be communicated to the Ld. Trial Court.
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 38 of 39
45. Let the Trial Court Record be returned to the Ld. Trial Court.
46. File be consigned to record room after due compliances.
Digitally
signed by
SATYABRATA
SATYABRATA PANDA
PANDA Date:
2025.06.05
17:08:50
+0530
(SATYABRATA PANDA)
District Judge-04
Judge Code- DL01057
PHC/New Delhi/05.06.2025
RCA DJ 5209/2016 DAYA RAM V. SCINDIA POTTERIES & SERVICES PVT LTD. Page No. 39 of 39