SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LAND OWNERSHIP & REJECTED ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM IN FAMILY DISPUTE

by Nancy Sharma | Oct 16, 2024

ASPECTS	DETAILS
Case Title	Neelam Gupta & Ors. vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Introduction	Civil dispute between family members over the ownership and possession of a 7.60-acre land in Raipur. The plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, claimed ownership based on a 1968 sale deed, while the defendants, Neelam Gupta & Ors., claimed the property was joint family land and alleged adverse possession.
Factual Background	Plaintiff purchased land via a sale deed in 1968 and filed a suit in 1986 for recovery of possession. Defendants claimed the property was part of joint family assets and asserted adverse possession since 1968. Trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, siding with the defendants on limitation and adverse possession.
Legal Issues	Whether the property was part of joint family property. Whether the plaintiff’s suit was barred by limitation. Whether the defendants perfected their title through adverse possession.
Applicable Law	Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 65 – Adverse possession). Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Analysis	The High Court reversed the lower courts’ decision, ruling that the property was not joint family property and defendants’ possession was not adverse but permissive.Supreme Court upheld this, stating that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession and that the plaintiff’s claim was within the limitation period.
Conclusion	The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants’ appeals and upheld the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover possession. The claim was not time-barred, and defendants did not establish adverse possession.
Current Scenario	The plaintiff, Rajendra Kumar Gupta, is entitled to recover possession of the disputed property. A related contempt petition was also closed as the defendants created third-party rights on the property during the appeal, violating the court’s status quo order.

CASE SUMMARY – In this case the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff’s claim to recover possession of a 7.60-acre land in Raipur. The defendants argued that the land was joint family property and claimed adverse possession. The lower courts had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The court held that the defendants’ possession was permissive and not adverse, and the plaintiff’s claim was not time-barred. The contempt petition against the defendants was also closed.

“Once the plaintiff proves his title, the defendant must establish adverse possession by showing open, continuous, and hostile possession for the prescriptive period; permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession.” — Supreme Court Judgment

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

← LIMITATION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION BEGINS WHEN POSSESSION BECOMES ADVERSE & NOT AT OWNERSHIP RULED BY SC SUMMONS TO PUNJAB, HARYANA OFFICIALS OVER STUBBLE BURNING BY SC →

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and , a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.