Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. It was put to the senior counsel for the appellant defendant that the plea now sought to be taken of ownership by way of adverse possession was mutually destructive to the plea earlier taken in the written statement of possession as a co-owner, a subrogatee-mortgagee and as a lessee. The senior counsel for the appellant defendant however contends that inconsistent pleas are permitted to be taken in the written statement and relies on the judgments noted above. Though inconsistent pleas are permitted to be taken by way of amendment in the written statement but the Supreme Court has at the same time in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo MANU/SC/0441/2009, Biswanath Agarwalla Vs. Sabitri Bera MANU/SC/1452/2009 & in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly MANU/SC/7401/2008 distinguished inconsistent pleas from mutually destructive pleas. Thus though a defendant is entitled to take an alternative and inconsistent plea, such alternative pleas cannot be mutually destructive of each other; pleadings of the parties are required to be read as a whole; defendants although are entitled to raise alternative and inconsistent pleas but should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other.

13. The plea of ownership by way of adverse possession now sought to be taken is found to be mutually destructive to the plea of possession as co-owner, as a subrogatee- mortgagee in possession and as a tenant. The Supreme Court in L.M. Aswathama Vs. P. Prakash MANU/SC/1222/2009 has also held that pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually destructive; adverse possession does not begin to operate until title is renounced; unless the person possessing the property has the requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, the period of prescription will not commence.