#480 - Tenant can never become Owner. Permissive Possession VS Adverse Possession

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VIKRAM NATH; J., RAJESH BINDAL; J. Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012; JANUARY 03, 2024 BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Adverse Possession - Tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords since their possession is permissive in nature. (Para 9.4) 5. The Trial Court had placed reliance upon the sale deed, the Mutation and the Khasra and Khewat entries. Further, the Trial Court had held that the proceedings under section 145 CrPC would not be of any benefit to the defendant respondents as it was not clear from the material placed that the said proceedings related to the land in question. 6. The defendant respondent preferred appeal before the District Judge which was registered as Civil Appeal No.14 of 1979. The District Judge, Hardoi, vide judgment dated 29.11.1979 dismissed the appeal. It however did not agree with a couple of findings recorded by the Trial Court and accordingly, recorded its own findings. According to the appellate court, the proceedings under section 145 CrPC were related to the land in dispute and that the possession of the defendant respondent was found over the land in dispute. It accordingly decreed the suit for possession and not for injunction as had been done by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court further held that the plaintiff-appellants were the owners of the land in dispute and they had been successful in establishing their title. 7. Another finding recorded by the Appellate Court was that the land in dispute was a non-agricultural land and there was no question of abolition of Zamindari with respect to the said land and therefore the claim of the defendants of becoming the owners on the abolition of Zamindari was not correct. It further found that the suit for arrears of rent filed in 1944 was with respect to some other land and not the land in dispute in as much as the suit land was vacant open piece of land whereas the 1944 suit for arrears of rent was with respect to the house of the defendants. Even the plot areas in the two suits were different. The Plot No.1019 being a huge piece of land where as the plaintiff appellant had purchased only a part of it, they had derived valid title from the Zamindars, the erstwhile owners. 8. It accordingly held that the period of 12 years for perfecting rights on the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time. 9. The defendant respondent preferred Second Appeal before the High Court which was registered as Second Appeal No.202 of 1980. It is this appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment giving rise to the present appeal. The High Court dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground of limitation as according to it, the defendant respondent had matured their rights or rather perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed. We are, however, of the firm view that the High Court fell in serious error in holding so, for the following reasons: 9.1 It has not dealt with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appeal Court with respect to the issue of Limitation and the evidence considered by them. 9.2 The High Court was hearing the Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 and it having reappreciated the findings to disturb findings of fact, committed an error. 9.3 The High Court has not recorded any finding that the plaintiff appellants were not the owners or that they have failed to prove the ownership. 9.4 The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944.