Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala
Supreme Court of India, 16 September 2013, 2 judges
The Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek a declaration that its adverse possession has matured into ownership, since adverse possession can be pleaded only as a defence, but protected the appellant's possession under its unchallenged injunction decree.
Facts
The appellant Gurudwara sued the Gram Panchayat for a declaration that it had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession, correction of the revenue record, a declaration that the Panchayat's auction of the land was void, and an injunction against dispossession. The trial court found that the appellant had been in adverse possession since 13.4.1952 and granted an injunction, but refused the declaration, holding that adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword. The respondents did not challenge the injunction. The appellant's first appeal and second appeal were dismissed; the High Court also observed that the appellant was not entitled to an injunction as the Panchayat owned the land. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Can a plaintiff in adverse possession sue for a declaration that its possession has matured into ownership?
- Was the High Court right to observe that the appellant was not entitled to an injunction, when the injunction decree had not been challenged?
What the Court held
- Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration that the adverse possession has matured into ownership. Adverse possession can be used only as a shield or defence, when proceedings are filed against the person and it is arrayed as defendant. The courts below were correct on this point.
- The High Court's observation that the appellant was not entitled to an injunction was perverse, unnecessary and beyond the scope of the appeal, since the injunction decree had not been challenged by the respondents and had attained finality.
- As the appellant has been in possession since 13.4.1952 and holds an injunction decree, its possession cannot be disturbed except by due process of law.
- If the respondents sue for possession or ejectment, the appellant may plead in defence that it has become owner by adverse possession, and may plead that the finding on issue No. 1 operates as res judicata. Subject to this clarification, the appeal was dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment states that adverse possession cannot found a suit for declaration of ownership by a plaintiff and is available only as a defence. It also shows that the plaintiff's possession, once protected by an unchallenged injunction decree, cannot be disturbed except by due process, and that the possessor keeps the right to plead adverse possession and res judicata in defence.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.”
“As pointed out above, the relief of injunction had already been granted by the Civil Court and this portion of the decree had not been challenged by the respondents. Decree to this extent in favour of the appellant had attained finality.”
“Needless to mention at this stage, the appellant shall also be at liberty to plead that findings of issue No.1 to the effect that the appellant is in possession of adverse possession since 13.4.1952 operates as res- judicata.”
Case and bench
- Parties
- Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 8244 of 2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23728 of 2012)
- Decided
- 16 September 2013
- Bench
- K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by A.K. Sikri, J., with K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.