Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1707 - SC - Indian LawsOwnership over the suit schedule property by inheritance - HELD THAT:- Once the High Court recorded a finding that the property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suit there was no question of the Plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said property assuming the view taken in JOHN B. JAMES AND ORS. VERSUS BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [2000 (8) TMI 1139 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was otherwise legally sound since the so called settled possession of the Appellants in RFA No. 911 of 2002 stood vacated from the suit schedule property, no prayer for injunction as set out in the petition filed by the Appellants in those appeals could help them for an injunction issues only to protect what is in lawful possession of the Plaintiffs. Injunction could not be claimed when Plaintiffs stand dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of the suit. The question of establishing settled possession did not, therefore, arise in relation to the properties that already stood cleared of any structures by demolition of whatever stood on the same. The High Court was, in that view, justified in setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. The High Court has, in particular, remained oblivious of the principle enunciated in the decisions to which are referred. All that the High Court has found in favour of the Plaintiffs is that their possession is established. That, however, does not conclude the controversy. The question is not just whether the Plaintiffs were in possession, but whether they had by being in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years perfected their title. That question has neither been adverted to nor answered in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Such being the case the High Court, in our opinion, erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant-BDA. The fact that the Plaintiffs had not and could not possibly establish their adverse possession over the suit property should have resulted in dismissal of the suit for an unauthorised occupant had no right to claim relief that would perpetuate his illegal and unauthorised occupation of property that stood vested in the BDA. Appeal dismissed.
|