Person will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in ‘Permissive Possession’, for however long it may be: Karnataka HC
In the case of Chepudira Madaiah v/s Mallengada Chengappa and ors. the Karnataka High Court while dismissing the appeal ruled that Person will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in ‘Permissive Possession’, for however long it may be.
The plaintiffs in the trial Court are the blood relatives of Bopaiah. The said Bopaiah had died three years prior to filing of the suit. The defendants are the sons of one late Muthanna, who died six years prior to filing of the suit. They said Muthanna had filed a civil suit against Bopaiah , in the Court of Addl. Munsiff, for possession of two bits of land measuring 35 cents and 10 cents, and sought for possession of the said alleged encroached land. Bopaiah, as a defendant, contested the suit and alleged that he has not encroached any land of the plaintiff, Muthanna, on the other hand, the said Muthanna himself had encroached some portions of his lands. Further Bopaiah filed the suit in trial court.
There were various issues raised before the court.
Firstly, whether the plaintiff in the trial Court has proved that defendants had encroached on the suit schedule properties.
Secondly, whether the defendants have perfected their title over the suit schedule properties by adverse possession.
Thirdly, whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court.
Advocate T.A. Karumbaiah, appearing for appellant, contended that the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Counsel submitted that the defendants have specifically taken a contention that from the year 1969, their father deceased Muthanna was in possession of the suit schedule property and was cultivating it by growing banana, coffee and other commercial crops.
Advocate Shravanth Arya Tandra, appearing for the respondent argued that the Court has given liberty to the plaintiffs to take appropriate legal action for recovery of the encroached land, which is the suit schedule property. The appeal came to be disposed of in the year 1998, as such, without any further delay, in the very next year i.e., in 1999, the suit was filed, thus, the same is within limitation.
The single bench of Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry while dismissing the Regular First Appeal and confirmed the decree passed by the Civil Judge. The court noted that the evidence placed before it in its proper perspective since the trial Court has arrived at a finding holding that the defendants have failed to prove their alleged perfection of title over the suit schedule property by adverse possession, therefore It do not find any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the said finding warranting any interference at the hands of this Court. As such, the finding given by the trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court and
Click Here To Read Original Order / Judgement
