Poona Ram v. Moti Ram
- shrey singh
- Jan 4, 2020
- 2 min read
Poona Ram v. Moti Ram
2019 SCC OnLine SC 91
Civil Appeal No. 4527 of 2009 decided on 03.01.2019
Bench
NV Ramana and MM Shantanagoudar, JJ
Fact
X claimed declaration of title and for possession against Y. Undisputedly, the X had no document of title to prove his possession, but claimed possessory title based on prior possession for a number of years. However, according to X, he had been wrongly dispossessed by Y in 1972, which was within the 12 years preceding the filing of the present suit.
Held
The Court said that merely on doubtful material and cursory evidence, it cannot be held that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the property and that too in settled possession.
Summary
Question of law
Whether X had better title over the suit property and whether he was in settled possession of the property, which required dispossession in accordance with law?
Argument Advance
It was argued that there is nothing on record to show that the X was in possession of the property at any point of time, much less for a longer time lawfully.
Judgment
Regarding Entry 64 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963
A suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, if brought within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Such a suit is known in law as a suit based on possessory title as distinguishable from proprietary title. It cannot be disputed and is by now well settled that ‘settled possession’ or effective possession of a person without title entitles him to protect his possession as if he were a true owner.
Regarding settled possession
The Court said that the crux of the matter is that a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner.
Settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner.
A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Comments