(Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
Narendra Kumar Tripathi ____________________________ Appellant;
v.
Karuna Auddy and Others _________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 9266 of 2019 [@ SLP (Civil) No. 19729 of 2019], decided on December 9, 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court has non-suited the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial Court on the ground that the plea of adverse possession cannot be used as a sword by the plaintiff and has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala reported in 2014 (1) SCC 669. This judgment has been specifically overruled by a three-Judgment Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur reported in 2019 (10) SCALE 473, wherein it has been held as under :
“59. We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years’ period of adverse possession is over, even owner’s right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. In case of dispossession by another person by taking law in his hand a possessory suit can be maintained under Article 64, even before the ripening of title by way of adverse possession. By perfection of title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. In case he has been dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse possession. Similarly, any other person who might have dispossessed the plaintiff having perfected title by way of adverse possession can also be evicted until and unless such other person has perfected title against such a plaintiff by adverse possession. Similarly, under other Articles also in case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff who has perfected the title by adverse possession, can sue and maintain a suit.
60. When we consider the law of adverse possession as has developed vis-a-vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In Such cases, on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court to decide the matter afresh considering the aforesaid judgment and other relevant factors. The decree passed in favour of the Respondents shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today and thereafter the High Court shall decide whether stay should be granted or not.
4. The RSA is of the year 2018 and the said year shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of disposal.
5. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19729/2019
Narendra Kumar Tripathi _____________________________ Petitioner
v.
Karuna Auddy & Ors _____________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 09-12-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv.
Mr. Kuldeep Rai, Adv
Mr. Rajat Roshan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Varun Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
