Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On the other hand, the case of the private-respondent was that the entire property in question was acquired by Jagannath, the grand-father of the private-respondent No.3. However, the pedigree as set up by the petitioner was disputed by the private-respondent and it was submitted that though Jhakri was the common ancestor but with passage of time, the sons of Jhakri had separated and were in possession of their different khatas. It was also pleaded that in respect of the disputed khata No.156, it remained recorded in the name of Jagannath and as such neither the petitioner had any co-tenancy rights nor he could perfect his rights by adverse possession inasmuch as both the plea of co-tenancy and adverse possession were mutually destructive.

18. It has further been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that insofar as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, it is not open for the petitioner to blow hot and cold at the same time. It is submitted that the claim of co-tenancy and adverse possession cannot be pleaded simultaneously as it is a mutually destructive plea. It is submitted that in law, a party is entitled to take alternate plea but not a mutually destructive plea.

19. It has further been urged that in case if the petitioner was pleading the plea of adverse possession then the burden was on the petitioner to establish his possession over the disputed property also the entry in PA-10 in favour of the petitioner and that the said entries were in accordance with law also that the notice of PA-10 was duly served on the owner of the property, in the instant case Jagannath, after him on the present respondent No.3 and also proving hostile possession to the knowledge of the true owner and that such entries were duly recorded as 'sikmi' in the record of rights maintained every year in the manner as provided under the Land Revenue Act, 1901.

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."

33. Thus, noticing the above requirement regarding adverse possession and if seen in context with the pleadings and material on record of the instant case, it is found that the plea of adverse possession cannot be sustained at all as neither the petitioner made adequate pleadings nor evidence worth its name to prove the said plea. Apart from the fact that the plea of co-tenancy and adverse possession being mutually destructive could not be raised by the petitioner.