Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9087   OF 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.13835 of 2019)

JIT RAM NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS. …Appellants

VERSUS

SATNAM SINGH …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  Appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated

28.03.2019  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2013 (O&M).   

3. One Banta, father of Jit Ram and Sibo, died on 02.07.1992.  Sibo,

though married, was not staying with her husband, but used to reside with

her father Banta.  After the death of Banta, Sibo filed  Civil Suit No.143 of

1993 for declaration that she had become the owner and was in possession

of land admeasuring 5 kanals out of land admeasuring 9 kanals 14 marlas

Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

2

owned  and  possessed  by  Banta  on  the  basis  of  Will  dated  26.06.1992

executed by Banta.   Sibo also sought a decree for permanent injunction to

restrain Jit Ram from interfering with her possession and from alienating

the land or any portion thereof.    The Suit was dismissed by the Additional

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, by his judgment and decree

dated 28.04.1998.  It was held that the Will, on the basis of which the claim

was raised, was highly suspicious and that Sibo had failed to prove her

case.

4. The  aforesaid  judgment  was  challenged  by  Satnam  Singh,  a

relation of  Sibo and Jit  Ram, by filing First  Appeal  in the court  of the

Additional  District  Judge,  Hoshiarpur.   It  was  submitted  that  with  the

consent of Banta he had erected a kachha structure in the land in question

and that  he  was in  occupation  of  that  structure  in  his  own right.   The

contentions were rejected and the First Appeal was dismissed by the Lower

Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 14.01.2003.  No further

challenge was raised and thus, the decree became final as against Sibo and

Satnam Singh, the Respondent herein.   

5. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.293 of 2003 was filed by Jit Ram against

the Respondent for possession of portion of the property over which that

Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

3

kachha structure  marked as  ‘ABCD’ in  the  site  plan  was situate.   The

matter  was contested by the Respondent by filing his written statement

submitting inter alia that by virtue of a Will executed by Sibo in favour of

him, the Respondent had an independent interest in the property.  A plea of

adverse  possession  was  also  taken  in  the  alternative.   The  Trial  Court

dismissed said Suit by its judgment and decree dated 11.04.2011 holding

inter alia that the Respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession

and the Suit was barred by limitation.   

6. Jit Ram, being aggrieved, preferred Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2011 in

the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, which was allowed by

Judgment and Decree dated 19.07.2013.  The Appellate Court found that

the claim of Sibo having been dismissed in the earlier round, she could not

have conferred any title with respect to the property by a Will in favour of

the Respondent.  It was also found that the possession of the Respondent

was  purely  permissive  and  that  the  claim  on  the  ground  of  adverse

possession was completely untenable.

7. The  Respondent,  being  aggrieved,  filed  Regular  Second  Appeal

No.3809  of  2013  (O&M) in  the  High  Court.   Jit  Ram having  expired

during the pendency of said Appeal, his heirs were substituted in his place.

Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

4

By its  Judgment  and  Order  dated  28.03.2019  said  Second  Appeal  was

allowed by the High Court.  The High Court approved the findings of the

Appellate Court insofar as it was held that the Respondent could not have

succeeded to the suit property on the basis of any will executed by Sibo.

However, the finding as regards issue of adverse possession was reversed

and the finding of the Trial Court was restored.  It was observed that the

Respondent  had  remained  in  open  and  hostile  possession  of  the  Suit

property which he had constructed in the year 1989.

8. In this Appeal we have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned Advocate

for the Appellant and Ms. Tina Garg, learned Advocate for the Respondent.

9. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the Respondent

of portion marked ‘ABCD’ and his occupation of the structure was purely

permissive  in  character.   At  no stage  the  possession was hostile  to  the

owners of the property.   The element of hostility was completely missing.

The finding rendered by the  Appellate  Court  was,  therefore,  absolutely

correct and there was no occasion for the High Court,  while exercising

second appellate jurisdiction, to set aside that finding.  In our view, the

High Court clearly erred in accepting the Second Appeal.   

Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

5

10. The fact  however  remains  that  the  structure  was put  up  by the

Respondent.   Pursuant to the interim direction issued by this  Court  the

pictures of the structure have been shown to the Court.  The structure is

completely dilapidated and in our view the value of the structure may not

have been more than Rs.5,000/-.  However, considering the fact that the

money was spent by the Respondent in the year 1989, in our view, ends of

justice  would  be  met  if  the  Appellants  are  directed  to  pay  a  sum  of

Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees  Fifty  Thousand  Only)  towards  the  cost  of  the

structure.

11. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment

and Order under Appeal to the extent it held against the Appellants on the

issue of adverse possession and we restore the Judgment and Decree dated

19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court subject to the Appellants paying

Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent within four weeks from today. The amount

shall  be  deposited  in  the  Trial  Court  and  shall  be  released  to  the

Respondent if he vacates and hands over possession of the structure to the

Appellants within two weeks after the deposit, whereafter the Respondent

shall  cease to  have any interest  in the structure.   In  case he refuses to

vacate and hand over such possession, the Respondent shall not be entitled

Civil Appeal No.9087 of 2019 @ SLP(C)No.13835 of 2019 Jit Ram now deceased through LRs.   vs.  Satnam Singh

6

to  the  sum so  deposited  and the  sum could  then be  withdrawn by the

Appellants,  who  shall  then  be  entitled  to  execute  the  decree  dated

19.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Court.  

12. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.  No costs.

……………..……………J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]

………………………….J. [Vineet Saran]

New Delhi; November 28, 2019.