Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff, who held a registered sale deed of 1968. The defendants could not reopen the joint family plea, which the first appellate court had rejected and they had not challenged. A minor can be a transferee of immovable property. The defendants' own application claiming to be lessees showed their possession was permissive, so adverse possession failed, and under Article 65 of the Limitation Act time runs from when possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff acquired title.
Issues
- Whether the defendants could contend that the suit land was joint Hindu family property after the first appellate court's contrary finding became final.
- Whether the 1963 purchase in the name of a minor and the 1968 sale deed in favour of a minor were void.
- Whether the defendants perfected title by adverse possession, and whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the High Court in second appeal could set aside concurrent findings as perverse.
Provisions considered
- Sections 6(h), 7 and 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 7 ties competence to transfer to competence to contract. Section 6(h) bars transfer only to a person legally disqualified to be a transferee, and Section 54 defines sale as a transfer of ownership, not a contract. Read together, these show that a minor can be a transferee though not a transferor, so neither sale deed was void on the ground of minority. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872Competence to contract depends on majority and soundness of mind. This bears on who can transfer under Section 7 TPA, not on who can receive a transfer. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Section 4(1) and (2), Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988The High Court relied on the bar against claims by a person asserting to be the real owner of property held benami to reject the plea that the ostensible purchaser had no right to sell to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that ownership passed to the plaintiff. (¶ 31)
- Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963For a suit for possession based on title, the twelve years run from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff acquired ownership. Once title is proved, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish adverse possession for the full period, which marks a change from Articles 142 and 144 of the 1908 Act. The courts below wrongly counted limitation from the date of the plaintiff's title. (¶¶ 13, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45)
Held
- Having not appealed or filed cross-objections against the first appellate court's finding that the suit land was not joint Hindu family property, the defendants could not argue the joint family plea before the High Court or the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 14, 25)
- A perverse finding is one against the evidence altogether, based on no evidence, or one no reasonable person would reach. Concurrent findings may be set aside if they are perverse. (¶¶ 15, 46)
- Evidence can be led only on pleaded facts and not in contradiction of them. A party cannot succeed on a case it has not set up, and the defendants' evidence departed from their written statement. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 23)
- A minor can be a transferee, though not a transferor, of immovable property. Neither the 1963 purchase in the name of the vendor nor the 1968 sale deed in the plaintiff's favour was void on that ground, and the registered sale deed passed ownership to the plaintiff. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- Adverse possession requires possession that is peaceful, open and continuous (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario), with animus possidendi under a hostile title, and it must be both pleaded and proved. The defendants had applied to the Tahsildar claiming to have taken the land on lease from the plaintiff as Adhiyadar, which showed permissive possession. They never established when it became adverse, and a lessee cannot claim adverse possession against the lessor. (¶¶ 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- Once the plaintiff proves title, the defendant must prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period, and limitation under Article 65 runs from when possession became adverse. The High Court rightly corrected the courts below, which had counted limitation from the date of the plaintiff's ownership. (¶¶ 36, 40, 45)
- Since the appeals were dismissed and the decree for possession became executable, the Court declined to examine the alleged breach of its status quo order, closed the contempt petition and left the plaintiff to execute the decree. (¶¶ 49, 50)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; High Court's decree for recovery of possession affirmed; contempt petition closed, notice to the alleged contemnors discharged, and the plaintiff left to execute the decree in accordance with law.