High Court's Restoration of Title Upheld: Waste-Dumping Does Not Constitute Possession, SC Dismisses Appeal

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal against the High Court's judgment in a second appeal concerning title and possession of an open plot adjacent to a residential building. The appeal challenged the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court which had earlier dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of ownership and possession.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conclusion and dismissed the civil appeal. The Court held that the sale deed and the corrected revenue records established the plaintiff's title to the entire extent described in the deed and that the mere presence of manure and waste on the land did not amount to adverse possession by the defendants. The Court agreed with the High Court that the lower courts were "perverse" in their approach where they treated dumping of waste as constituting possession. The Court noted that some defendants had not contested the suit and therefore could not sustain the appeal based on another defendant's contentions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The revenue records produced by the plaintiff showed the corrected area as per the sale deed. Merely because the correction was done in the course of the suit is no reason to disbelieve the public record maintained. The written submissions indicate that the application for correction was filed much before the suit was filed and the documents were produced in first appeal by an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, which however was rejected. Even dehors such proof the latest revenue records having shown the actual extent, it was for the defendants to disprove the same. The trial court ought not to have suspected the sanctity of the correction, unless it was disproved.” The Court also emphasised that "the mere reason of the manure and waste having been found in the property, cannot lead to a finding of possession; which finding is perverse."

Background The dispute arose from a suit for declaration of ownership and possession with consequential injunction over a property described in a sale deed (Ext. 81). The plaintiff sought declaration and permanent injunction against defendants who, he alleged, were dumping waste and keeping manure on an open plot contiguous to the building plot. The trial court, relying on a Commissioner's report and discrepancies in revenue records, rejected the plaintiff's claim over the entire area; the first appellate court upheld dismissal, finding the sale deed concerned a smaller extent (109.70 sq. metres) and treating the declaratory relief as discretionary under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court in second appeal reversed those findings, holding that the sale deed conveyed 150 sq. metres and that corrected revenue records reflected that extent; it further held that dumping of manure did not found a possessory claim.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants argued that revenue records were corrected during suit and that the Commissioner's finding showed possession with a defendant; the respondent contended that the title deed and revenue records supported his possession and that waste-dumping did not create title. The Court examined the documentary record, the Commissioner's report, and evidence including PW2 who deposed to prior possession by the vendor. The Court found the High Court was right to place reliance on the sale deed and corrected revenue records and to reject the contention that mere dumping of refuse established possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's order; pending applications stood disposed of. The Court also observed that parties who did not contest the suit could not prosecute an appeal on grounds advanced by another defendant.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 720 of 2015 Case Title: Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) Through LRs. and Others …Appellants Versus Suresh Tukaram Nerkar …Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Satyajit A. Desai, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Gagan Sanghi, Advocate