Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) through LR v. The State of Rajasthan
Background
The appellant's predecessor had filed a suit way back in 1961 claiming rights over certain temples and attached shops, which the trial court dismissed in 1977. During the decades-long first appeal against that dismissal, interim court orders had temporarily restored the appellant's possession of a temple property. When the first appeal was ultimately dismissed in 2018 (and the Supreme Court declined to interfere), the respondents (the State) sought to recover possession under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code (the law on "restitution", undoing benefits a party received under an order later reversed), and the High Court allowed this, directing the appellant to hand back the property.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 144 CPC, which applies when a decree or order is "varied or reversed", could apply here, since there was never originally a decree in the appellant's favour that was later reversed; rather, possession had been given only under temporary interim orders during the pendency of an appeal that was ultimately dismissed. The Court held that once the first appeal was finally dismissed, the natural and logical consequence was that the appellant had to restore possession, and the High Court was right to direct this, even via a Section 151 CPC application rather than treating it strictly as Section 144 restitution. Given the dispute had dragged on for nearly 59 years and the appellant had lost at every stage, the Court directed the appellant to hand over peaceful possession within eight weeks, warning of serious consequences for defiance, and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Possession obtained only through a temporary, interim court order during ongoing litigation is not a permanent right, once the underlying case is finally lost, a party must hand back what was held under that interim protection, and courts can enforce this even decades later.