LI Network
Published on: October 9, 2023 at 00:53 IST
The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that in a perpetual injunction suit based on title, if the defendant asserts ownership through adverse possession, the plaintiff need not seek a declaration of ownership.
The Court’s decision came in response to an appeal challenging a High Court judgment, where the First Appellate Court’s decree was set aside.
The Bench, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, held that in such cases, where the defendant claims adverse possession, there is no dispute about the plaintiff’s title. Consequently, there is no necessity for the plaintiff to pursue a separate ownership declaration.
The case revolved around a perpetual injunction suit filed by the Appellant concerning a property dispute with his brother. The Respondent contested the claim, asserting possession since 1978.
The Trial Court initially allowed the amendment of the complaint to include a declaration of ownership, but the High Court held that the amendment was time-barred and did not relate back to the original suit.
The Supreme Court referred to the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. and Others [2008] and clarified that if the defendant pleads adverse possession, the suit focuses solely on possession on the date of filing. Therefore, the Appellant was not required to seek a separate declaration of ownership.
The Court analyzed the High Court’s framing of substantial questions of law and concluded that the second issue was not substantial. Consequently, the case was remanded to the regular second appeal in the High Court with additional substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
In light of this ruling, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the legal procedures in perpetual injunction suits involving adverse possession claims, ensuring a more precise understanding of the necessary legal steps.