Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i)1971 (3) SCC 708 (District Council of United Khasi and Jaintia Hills and Others, Etc. v. Miss Sitimon Sawian Etc.);

(ii)(1993) 2 SCC 533 (Major General B.M.Bhattacharjee (Retd.) and another v. Russel Estate Corporation and another);

9.Resisting the same, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff submits that Ex.A1 allotment order has been admitted by the first defendant/appellant herein. The written statement filed by the second defendant would also show that the appellant herein was allotted a separate common plot. Even though the appellant has pleaded adverse possession of the suit property, all the documents stood in the name of the plaintiff and most of the documents relied upon by the first defendant came into existence, after filing of the suit. Hence, both the Courts below have rightly negatived the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellant. He further submits that when the plaintiff was residing in her in-laws house due to her ill-health, the first defendant/appellant broke open the door of the suit property and took away the receipts of the lease amount paid by the plaintiff to the second defendant and marked the documents on his side. Now the appellant/first defendant is in possession of the suit property, his possession is not an adverse possession, hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession. He has also relied upon the decision reported in CDJ 2006 SC 659 (T.Anjanappa and others v. Somalingappa and another) and 2005 (5) CTC 1 (T.N.Anantha Balaraje Urs v. Smt.Gunamba Nanjaraje Urs) and submits that the first defendant/appellant herein has not proved that he prescribed title by adverse possession. Since both the defendants admitted that Ex.A1 allotment order has been issued in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff, there is no necessity for her to file the suit for declaration of title. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal.