Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 65 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 26 docs - [View All]
Vishnunarayan Badrinarayan vs Anantnarayan Motilal And Ors. on 30 September, 1991
Natesan vs Chinnachi Kandar And Others on 29 March, 1996
Uma Shankar Shukla And Others vs Smt Lalita Bai on 8 February, 2012
Kodiyan vs Karambi on 18 August, 2005
K.J.Xavier vs Sebastian K.M. on 21 May, 2008

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Supreme Court of India
Gaya Parshad Dikshit vs Dr. Nirmal Chander & Anr on 3 January, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 930, 1984 SCR (2) 287
Author: P Bhagwati
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. (Cj)
           PETITIONER:
GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/01/1984

BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)
MADON, D.P.

CITATION:
 1984 AIR  930		  1984 SCR  (2) 287
 1984 SCC  (2) 286	  1984 SCALE  (1)489


ACT:
     Limitation Act  1963, Article  65,	 `title	 by  adverse
possession'-Claim of-Licence  terminated by  notice-Suit for
possession-Licence to  show by overt act that he is clamming
adverse title.



HEADNOTE:
     The respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession
of the	premises from the appellant after termination of his
licence. The appellant claimed title by adverse possession.
     The High  Court  held  that  mere	termination  of	 the
licence of  a licencee	does not enable the licence to claim
adverse possession,  unless and	 until he  sets up  a  title
hostile to  that of  the licencer  after termination  of his
licence, and decreed the suit for possession.
     Dismissing the appeal,
^
     HELD :  1. There  must be some overt act on the part of
the licencee  indicating assertion  of hostile	title.	Mere
continuance of	unauthorised possession even for a period of
more than 12 years is not enough. [288 D]
     2.	 It   is  not	merely	unauthorised  possession  on
termination of	his licence  that enables  the	licencee  to
claim title  by adverse	 possession but	 there must  be some
overt act  on the  part of  the licencee  to show that he is
claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licencor may
not file  an action for the purpose of recovering possession
of the	premises from  the licencee  after  terminating	 his
licence but  that by  itself cannot  enable the	 licencee to
claim title by adverse possession. [288 C]
     In the instant case, the High Court was right in taking
the view that the appellant had not established any title by
adverse	 possession,   and  that   the	suit  of  the  first
respondent for	recovery of  possession of the premises from
the appellant  was  not	 barred	 under	Article	 65  of	 the
Limitation Act, 1963. [288 E-F]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1811 of 1978.

From the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1978 of the Allahabad High Court in second Appeal No. 1287 of 1974.) 288 S. Markendeya for the Appellant.

EC Agarwala for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the court was delivered by BHAGWATI, ACTING C.J. We have heard the learned counsel of behalf of the appellant and after hearing him and perusing the judgment of the High Court, we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that mere termination of the licence of a licencee does not enable the licencee to claim adverse possession, unless and until he sets up a title hostile to that of the licencor after termination of his licence. It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licencee to claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act on the part of the licencee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licencee after terminating his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licencee to claim title by adverse possession. There must be some overt act on the part of the licencee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than 12 years is not enough. Here in the present case there is nothing to show that at any time after termination of his licence by Dr. Rama Shanker or by the first respondent the appellant asserted hostile title in himself. The High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that the appellant had not established any title by adverse possession and in that view of the matter, the suit of the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant was not barred under article 65 which is the only article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable in the present case. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Markandeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that the appellant has been in possession of the premises which consist of rooms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shown in the Amin's map marked 16/5C since his birth and it would cause considerable hardship to him if he were to be evicted from these rooms immediately and he has, therefore, requested that sufficient time may be granted to the appellant to vacate these rooms. He has also stated that in the meanwhile the appellant is prepared to give up possession of room No.1 but he may be allowed to continue in possession of room Nos. 4 & 5 for some reasonable period. This is a reasonable request on 289 behalf of the appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant has been in possession of rooms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 for a very long period and he has a son who is studying in school, we are inclined to grant time to the appellant to hand over possession of room Nos. 4 and 5, provided he gives up possession of room No. 1 on or before 28th February, 1984. If the appellant hands over vacant and peaceful possession of room No. 1 and any other portion of the house which may be in his own occupation apart from room Nos. 4 and 5 on or before 28th February, 1984 and he and his son file an affidavit in this Court on or before the same date stating that they are in possession and occupation of rooms Nos. 4 and 5 and undertaking that they will not induct anyone else in possession or occupation of these two rooms and will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of these two rooms to the 1st respondent on or before 30th June, 1987, the decree for possession against the appellant in respect of rooms Nos. 4 and 5 will not be executed until 30th June, 1987. If vacant and peaceful possession of room No. 1 is not handed over by the appellant to the 1st respondent on or before 28th February, 1984 or if the appellant and his son fail to file an affidavit in the aforesaid terms on or before that date, the decree for possession will become executable forthwith.

There will be no order as to costs throughout.

N.V.K.					  Appeal dismissed.
290