Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The defendant No.1-club contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all material allegations made out in the plaint. The defendant-club specifically pleaded that neither the plaintiffs, nor their predecessor-in-interest had possession over the suit property at any point of time. The defendant-club has been possessing the suit property since 1924 by performing Durga Puja festival under the banner "Shibpur Sadharan Durgotsav (Mandirtala)". The club members also perform yearly Laxmi Puja without any interruption and organize different cultural programs, like Yatra, physical and bodybuilding show and other programs since 1924. All such functions and performances were organized by the defendant No.1- club without any interruption from any corner including the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest. Thus the defendant No. 1 pleaded that the said club had been possessing the suit property openly, peaceably, uninterruptedly for more than 76 years well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest. The defendant No. 1 admitted construction of fencing on one side of the suit property. It is also stated by the defendant No.1 that the club had three wings, viz. Shibpur Tarun Samity, Dwijendra Health Home (also known as Shibpur Dwijendra Vayamghar) and Gopal Smriti Sangha. Subsequently the club was named after the freedom fighter and social worker and academician of the locality Bijay Krishna Bhattacharya. The club had already constructed a two storied building adjacent to 'B' schedule property for running the social and cultural works including health home etc. The club also maintain an ambulance van for carrying ailing patient of the locality and the said car is parked regularly on the suit property. It is further pleaded by the defendant that the suit property is triangular in shape and it is the only open space in the locality. The Howrah Improvement Trust had ear marked the said 'B' schedule property for construction of a proposed park for the benefit of the residents of the locality.

11. On the careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is found that ownership of one Biswanath Dutta, since deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants in respect of the suit property was not disputed by the defendants/respondents. It is also not disputed and furthermore, is supported by the report of the Advocate Commissioner during local inspection that the suit property is vacant land. The defendants/respondents have claimed adverse possession over the suit property on the specific plea that for last 76 years or more the defendant/club has been performing Durga Puja and Laxmi Puja on the suit property. Secondly, suit property is commonly known as Mandirtala Math or Maidan. Thirdly, the defendant/club organised different cultural functions including three days' Yatra Pala by engaging professional opera parties. Fourthly, they have organised physical and body building show and other cultural programmes on the vacant suit property. It is the further case of the defendant/respondent/club that they are maintaining one Ambulance for carrying patient of the locality and the said Ambulance is parked on the said vacant suit property.

14. Thus in order to claim title by adverse possession must be adequate in continuity. In other words defendant must prove that he was continuously in possession without any break for 12 years or more claiming hostile title of the real owner.

15. In the instant case, the defendant-club has claimed possession over the suit property on the plea of performing Durga Puja and Laxmi Puja and some cultural functions for 3/4 days in a year. Performance of some religious or cultural programme on a vacant land cannot be said to be a continuous possession by the defendant adversely to the interest of the real owner.

22. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellants, on the other hand, submits drawing my attention to the amended plaint that the appellants instituted the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The respondents took the defence of adverse possession. Therefore, the respondents admitted ownership and title of the appellants, because plea of adverse possession can only be taken against a rightful owner of the property.

23. It is further submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the respondents hopelessly failed to prove their case of adverse possession. The respondents tried to establish their case of adverse possession stating, inter alia, that Durga Puja is being performed every year on the suit property organised by the club. Secondly, they organised some cultural programmes in the form of Yatra Pala and body building show. Performance of some religious and cultural functions on a piece of vacant land belonging to the appellants does not prove continuity of possession by the defendant-club. Possession of a particular person in order to be adverse, must be open, continuous and hostile to the interest of the real owner. In the instant case the appellants proved their title over the property. The defendants/respondents, on the contrary, could not produce any evidence except performance of Durga Puja and Laxmi Puja on the suit property and some cultural programmes over it for few days in a year. Such activity of the defendant-club cannot establish hostile title over the suit property in favour of them to the detriment of the appellants.