Narendra & Ors. v. Ajabrao s/o Narayan Katare (D) Through LRs.
Background
The appellants purchased a house in Nagpur in 1985, part of which was already occupied by the original defendant, Ajabrao, who refused to vacate when asked and instead claimed he had acquired ownership of his portion by adverse possession after 40 years of residence. The appellants sued for a declaration of title and possession; the Trial Court dismissed the suit (accepting adverse possession), the first Appellate Court reversed and decreed in the appellants' favour, but the High Court in second appeal restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in deciding a second appeal (which is confined to substantial questions of law) as if it were a first appeal, re-appreciating the entire evidence and overturning a factual finding of the first Appellate Court. The Court reiterated settled law that adverse possession requires hostile, open, and continuous possession asserted against the true owner's title for the statutory period, with the burden of proof on the person claiming it, and found that Ajabrao had not even properly pleaded when or how his assertion of hostile title began, let alone proved it; his possession was in reality merely permissive, which the appellants had lawfully revoked. The appeals were accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the first Appellate Court's decree in the appellants' favour restored.
Lesson Learnt
A long period of possession alone does not create ownership by adverse possession: the person claiming it must specifically plead and prove when and how their possession turned hostile to the true owner's title; and High Courts cannot re-weigh evidence and overturn factual findings in a second appeal unless a genuine question of law is involved.