The Supreme Court in the case Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. LRS. V. Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) Thr. LRS And Ors. observed that the tenants cannot claim adverse possession against their landlords, since their possession is permissive in nature.
The bench comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal in the case observed and has declined the appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the suit for ownership/possession as time-barred.
The plaintiff in the plea claimed title through a registered sale deed executed in 1966 and claimed to have received possession pursuant to the sale deed.
The present suit was filed by the plaintiff in 1975 when the defendant’s obstructed construction.
Therefore, the trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court affirmed.
It has also been held by the High Court that the suit was time-barred, as the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff in 1944.
The Supreme Court in the case observed while terminating this finding to be erroneous that the defendant respondents were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against the then landlords and there being no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944.
Adding to it, the court stated that this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966.
The court stated that the dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant respondents would arise only after the said date and not on any date which being prior to it and from the date of the sale deed, the suit was filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975. Thus, even if it has been assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, thus, their possession could not have been adverse even to the Zamindars as they were tenants and their tenancy would be permissible in nature and not adverse.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has allowed the appeal which is preferred by the plaintiff – appellant by maintaining the status-quo on the judgement passed by the First Appellate Court for decreeing the suit for possession that held that the period of 12 years for perfecting rights which being on the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time.
