Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 38991 OF 2013

Janatha Dal Party … Petitioner

Versus

The Indian National Congress & Others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We are, in this case, concerned with the ownership  

and  possession  of  Premises  No.  3,  Race  Course  Road,  

Bangalore,  ‘A’  scheduled  property,  wherein,  at  present,  

the political party Office of Janata Dal (Secular) is situated.  

The  suit  property  originally  belonged  to  one  Sri  C.  

Rangaswamy, who was the resident of Property No.  54,  

Hospital  Road,  Baleput,  Bangalore  City,  executed  a  

registered  Gift  Deed  dated  22.4.1949  in  favour  of

Page 2

2

Bangalore City Congress Committee which was having its  

office  at  No.  142,  Cottonpet,  Bangalore  City,  which  

measured 5330 sq. yards.    The land was donated by the  

donor for the purpose of construction of Congress House,  

wherein  the  All  India  Congress  Party  constructed  a  

building, by name, ‘Congress Bhavan’, in a portion of the  

suit property.   In the year 1969, there was split within the  

Indian National Congress giving rise to two groups, one led  

by late Smt. Indira Gandhi, under the Presidentship of late  

Sri Jagajivan Ram and the other group led by late Sri S.  

Nijalingappa.  The group led by Jagajivan Ram was then  

called the ‘Indian National Congress (J)’, whereas the other  

group led by Nijalingappa was called as ‘Indian National  

Congress (O)’.  The split in the party at the centre had its  

own effect in the State of Karnataka as well.   The then  

Mysore Pradesh Congress Party broke up into Congress (J)  

and Congress (O) corresponding to those groups in the All  

Indian Congress  Committee  at  the  Centre.   Each group  

claimed itself to be the real Indian National Congress. That

Page 3

3

dispute came up before the Election Commission of India  

(ECI).   

2. The  ECI,  applying  the  test  of  majority  at  the  

organizational level and the legislative wings, by its order  

11.1.1971  held  that  the  Congress  (J)  was  the  Indian  

National Congress.   The  decision  of  the  ECI  was  

upheld by this Court in  Shri Sadiq Ali and another v.   

The Election Commission of  India,  New Delhi  and  

others  (1972)  4  SCC 664.   Consequently,  Congress  (J)  

group, formed as the Indian National Congress, came to  

be  recognized  as  the  Indian  National  Congress  for  all  

purposes.

3. The General Elections to the Lok Sabha were held in  

the  year  1977.   The  opposition  parties  consisting  of  

Congress (O) Group - led by Nijalingappa, Lok Dal headed  

by late Sri  Charan Singh,  Jana Sangha – led by Sri  A.B.  

Vajapayee  and  Congress  for  Democracy  -  led  by  Sri  

Jagjivan Ram, fought elections together as one front under  

the name of Janata Party.   Congress was defeated in that

Page 4

4

election.   Janata  Party  formed  the  Government  at  the  

Centre, but did not last long.  In the year 1978, there was  

a further split within the Congress. National Convention of  

the  Congress  was  held  at  New  Delhi  on  1.1.1978  and  

2.1.1978,  in  which  members  of  the  All  India  Congress  

Committee, Members of Parliament, members of the State  

Legislatures  and  Congress  candidates  participated  and  

they  unanimously  elected  Smt.  Indira  Gandhi  as  the  

President, though Sri K. Brahmananda Reddy was also in  

the fray.  ECI was called upon to examine that dispute as  

well.   Later,  Sri  D.  Devaraj  Urs  succeeded  Sri  

Brahmananda Reddy as the President of that group, which  

came to be known as Congress (U).     However,  Indira  

Gandhi continued to be the leader of the main body which  

was  identified  as  the  Congress  (I).   The  Election  

Commission allotted separate symbols to the Congress (U)  

and (I) groups.   The election to the Lok Sabha took place  

in December 1979 and Congress (I) was voted back to the  

Lok Sabha.  

Page 5

5

4. The Election Commission, in the meantime, resolved  

the  dispute  pending  before  it  and  recognized  Indira  

Gandhi as the President of the Party, known by the name  

of Congress (I). It was also held that the group led by D.  

Devaraj Urs, known by the name of Congress (U), was not  

the Congress, leaving liberty to that group to approach the  

Commission  for  its  recognition  as  a  party,  taking  a  

different name for itself. D. Devaraj Urs, purporting to be  

the President of Congress (U), filed a petition for special  

leave to appeal to this Court against the order of the ECI  

dated 23.7.1981.  This Court, after issuing notices to all  

the parties and hearing counsel on either side, dismissed  

the Special Leave Petition on 14.8.1981.

5. We have narrated the above facts to indicate that the  

suit property, all other properties and funds belonging to  

or referred to as belonging to the Congress are thus the  

properties and funds of the 1st Plaintiff herein.   Similarly,  

all  properties  and  funds  belonging  to  or  referred  to  as  

belonging  to  the  erstwhile  Mysore  Pradesh  Congress  

Committee  or  the  KPCC thus  belong to  the  2nd Plaintiff

Page 6

6

herein.  The ‘A’ Schedule property is owned by 2nd and 1st  

plaintiffs  herein.    The  land  comprised  therein  was  

acquired  by  the  erstwhile  Mysore  Pradesh  Congress  

Committee, as it was then called, and it constructed the  

buildings standing in the suit property, which was earlier  

known as Congress Bhavan.

6. We have already  indicated  that  Janata Party  came  

into possession of the schedule property in question in the  

year  1977.   During  the  period,  the  above  mentioned  

property  was  under  the  control  of  Congress  (O)  group.  

Two lease deeds were executed in respect of two portions  

of the vacant land, vide lease deeds dated 22.1.1971 and  

10.4.1971, in favour of 3rd respondent.  After the Janata  

Party came in possession in the year 1977, the previous  

Janata Party, a unit of 1st defendant, granted lease of a  

portion of the plaint ‘A’, schedule property in favour of 4 th  

defendant on 04.08.1981,  of which defendants 5 to 8 are  

partners, the portion leased is described in the plaint ‘C’  

schedule.   The Janata Party or the previous Janata Party  

had  no  right,  title  or  interest  for  granting  lease  of  the

Page 7

7

plaint ‘C’.   Defendants 9-12 are stated to be the tenants  

in  portions  of  the  building  constructed  in  ‘A’  schedule  

property,  having  taken the  same on  lease  from the  1st  

defendant.

7. We have indicated that  the plaintiffs  instituted the  

present  suit  seeking  a  declaration  of  their  title  and for  

possession of the suit property and also sought to recover  

Rs.36,000/- towards past mesne profits.  Defendant  1  

and  2  filed  their  written  statements  on  10.11.1983  

contesting  the  suit,  but  the  factual  details  were  not  

disputed as such.  But, it was pleaded that the decision  

taken by the ECI or the judgment of this Court in  Sadiq  

Ali (supra)  would  not  confer  any  title,  ownership  or  

possession of the suit property on the plaintiffs.  According  

to  the  defendants,  throughout,  the  above  mentioned  

property was in the possession of Congress (O), and after  

its merger, it was in the possession of Janata Party and, at  

no  point  of  time,  the  plaintiffs  were  in  possession.

Further, it was also pleaded that the suit itself was  

barred by the law of  limitation.  Defendants 4 to 6 filed a

Page 8

8

written  statement  on  31.7.1984  disputing  the  plaintiffs’  

right  to  bring  the  suit  on  behalf  of  Indian  National  

Congress.    They pleaded that the Congress (O) continued  

to  be  in  possession  as  the  absolute  owner  of  the  suit  

property.  Further, it is also stated that Congress (O) and  

some  other  political  parties  joined  together  and  

constituted Janata Party and Congress (O) was one of the  

constituents of Janata Party, and the property in question  

became  the  property  of  Janata  Party  and,  since  1977,  

Janata Party has been enjoying the suit property and they  

were having their rights to lease out the property to other  

contesting defendants.    

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial  

Court  framed  24  issues.   On  behalf  of  the  plaintiffs,  5  

witnesses  were  examined  and  17  documents  were  

exhibited.    On behalf  of  defendants,  2  witnesses were  

examined and 18 documents  were  exhibited.   The trial  

Court, after examining the rival contentions, and, on facts,  

came to the conclusion that Congress (O), which was led  

by  Nijalingappa,  lost  its  identity  as  Indian  National

Page 9

9

Congress  by  virtue  of  the  decision  of  the  Election  

Commission and as pointed out by this Court in Sadiq Ali  

case.    The trial Court also held that this Court recognized  

the group led by Jagjivan Ram and Indira Gandhi as the  

Indian National  Congress.   Consequently,  the  properties  

and funds of Indian National Congress, before its split in  

1969, would be of Congress (J) lead by Jagjivan Ram and  

Indira  Gandhi  and  it  would  not  be  the  property  of  the  

dissident group which was identified as Congress (O).   On  

facts, it was noticed that Congress (O) was subsequently  

merged with Janata Party and, on account of said merger,  

Janata  Party  would  not  acquire  ownership  of  the  suit  

schedule property.  It was held that since Janata Party was  

not the owner of the suit property, it had no right to grant  

lease in favour of 4th defendant and grant of such lease by  

Janata Party would not bind the plaintiffs.  Similarly, it was  

also held that the grant of lease in ‘C’ schedule property in  

favour of 3rd defendant by the President of Mysore Pradesh  

Congress Committee,  a  unit  of  Congress (O)  party,  was  

illegal and was not preceded by approval or permission of

Page 10

10

Indian National Congress.   The trial Court also rejected  

the  plea  of  adverse  possession  and limitation  and  held  

that the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their title  

over  the properties  in  question and,  consequently,  held  

that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession and  

also mesne profits.  Aggrieved by the same, Janata Party  

filed RFA No. 2011 of 2005 which was heard by a Division  

Bench of the High Court.  The High Court concurred with  

the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the  

appeal by its judgment dated 11.10.2013, against which  

this SLP has been preferred.

9. Shri  Gopal  Subramanium,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  petitioner,  reiterated  all  the  factual  

contentions  raised before  the trial  Court  as  well  as  the  

High Court based on the basis of the written statements  

filed  by  the  contesting  respondents  and submitted  that  

neither the decision of the ECI nor the judgment of this  

Court  in  Sadiq  Ali (supra),  would  confer  any  title  or  

possession  on  the  plaintiffs  over  the  suit  property.  

Learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff could

Page 11

11

succeed in establishing their title and possession only on  

the basis of independent documents and not on the basis  

of the decision of the ECI or the judgment of this Court in  

Sadiq Ali.   Learned senior counsel also submitted that  

the High Court has erred in noticing that Article 65 of the  

Limitation  Act,  1963,  specifies  that  the  limitation  for  

possession of immovable property or any interest therein  

based on title is  12 years and the time from which the  

period  begins  to  run  is  when  the  possession  of  the  

defendant became adverse to the plaintiff.  Learned senior  

counsel pointed out that, in the instant case, possession of  

the  defendant  and  their  predecessor  in  title  became  

adverse to that of the plaintiff more than 12 years prior to  

the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit was liable to  

be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.    

10. We have heard the arguments  at  length and have  

also gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as  

the judgments of the Courts below.  We find it difficult to  

accept the contention raised by the learned senior counsel  

that  the  decision  of  the  ECI  dated  11.1.1971  or  the

Page 12

12

judgment of this  Court in  Sadiq Ali (supra) would have  

no bearing, so far as the facts of this case are concerned.  

The question as to which of the two groups, Congress (J)  

or  Congress  (O)  (the  then  Congress  Party)  should  be  

recognized as the Congress,  as already indicated,  came  

before the ECI.  ECI, after applying the test of majority at  

the organizational level and the legislative wings, took the  

view  that  Congress  (J)  group  of  Congress  came  to  be  

recognized as the Congress for all purposes.  The order of  

ECI and this Court clearly indicate   that the Congress then  

led  by  Indira  Gandhi  had  established  rights  on  the  

properties in question.  The Courts below have narrated in  

detail how the suit property came into the hands of the  

plaintiffs  and  how  the  Congress  (O)  followed  by  Janata  

Party ceased to have any right over the suit property in  

question.    Since,  on  facts,  it  was  found  that  the  

defendants have no right over the property in question,  

the  various  lease  deeds  executed by  them also  cannot  

stand in the eye of law.  

Page 13

13

11. We have noticed that the property in question was  

gifted  vide  registered  gift  deed  dated  22.4.1949  by  

Rangaswamy  in  favour  of  Bangalore  City  Congress  

Committee.   Plaintiffs could successfully trace their title  

and interest over the suit property towards that gift deed  

executed  in  the  year  1949,  coupled  with  the  various  

declarations by the ECI recognizing the petitioner as the  

real Congress and the Judgment of this Court affirming the  

same.

12. We are also not impressed by the arguments raised  

by the learned senior  counsel  on the plea of  limitation.  

So far as Janata Party is concerned, it came into picture  

only in the year 1977.  On facts, it is clearly found that  

Congress  (O)  had no right  in  the  suit  property.   In  the  

instant  case,  Janata  Dal  (Secular)  was  impleaded  as  

defendant only on 14.10.2003 and the disputed property  

was known as the Congress Bhavan till  the formation of  

Janta Dal in the year 1977.   It is relevant to note that the  

defendants had never accepted plaintiffs as the owner of  

the property.  On the contrary, their specific case was that

Page 14

14

the  1st defendant  was the owner  of  the property.    On  

facts, it was found that the 1st defendant had no title over  

the property in  question.   Further,  the entire burden of  

proving  that  the  possession  is  adverse  to  that  of  the  

plaintiffs,  is  on the defendant.   On the other  hand,  the  

possession  of  the  suit  property  was  throughout  of  

Congress (O) and its successor parties and not that of the  

petitioner herein.  It was after the split in Janata Party and,  

subsequently  before  the  filing  of  the  suit,  Janata  Dal  

continued to be in possession of the suit property.   The  

plea of limitation and adverse possession was elaborately  

considered by the Courts below and we find no error in the  

findings recorded by the Courts below on that ground as  

well.   Further, no substantive question of law arises for  

our consideration.   The SLP, therefore, lacks  merits and is  

dismissed.

13. Considering  the  facts  that  the  petitioner  is  in  

possession of the property for a considerable long period,  

we are inclined to grant time up to 31.12.2014 to vacate  

the  premises,  for  which the petitioner  has  to  prefer  an

Page 15

15

undertaking  before  this  Court  within  one  month  from  

today   stating  that  the  petitioner  would  vacate  the  

premises within the stipulated time and that the petitioner  

would  pay the  entire  arrears  of  rent  within  a  period of  

three months and will continue to pay the rent without any  

default.   If  the  petitioner  commits  two  consecutive  

defaults  in  payment  of  monthly  rent  or  fails  to  file  the  

undertaking, the time granted by this Court would not be  

available and it will be open to the respondents to get the  

judgment/decree executed.   

………………………….J. (K. S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………….J. (Vikramajit Sen)

New Delhi, January 21, 2014.