BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 60, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 60 : 2024 INSC 9
Case Details
Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs.
v.
Sudesh Kumar Alias Suresh Kumar (D) 
Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7502 of 2012)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed 
by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for 
possession on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected 
their rights by adverse possession.
Headnotes
Adverse possession – Suit by the appellant for the relief of 
injunction with alternative relief for possession – Dismissed by 
the High Court on the ground of limitation as the respondent 
perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued 
so since 1944 when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed 
– Justification:
Held: Appellants got their ownership/title under the registered sale 
deed in 1966 – Dispute for possession vis-à-vis the respondents 
would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior 
to it – From the date of the sale deed, the suit was filed within 
the period of 12 years in 1975 – Even if it is assumed that the 
respondents were in possession from prior to 1944, 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 – There were no proceedings for possession prior 
to 1966 – First appellate court having recorded a specific
finding 
that the land in suit was not covered by Zamindari Abolition as it 
was non-agricultural land, the claim of ownership from the date of 
abolition of Zamindari was also without any merit – Respondents 
thus having failed to establish their title, would have no right to 
retain the possession – Impugned judgment and order of the High 
Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court decreeing 
the suit for possession is maintained. [Paras 9.5-9.6]
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
61
BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. v. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS 
SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7502 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2012 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad Bench at Lucknow in SA No.202 of 1980.
Appearances:
Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Ms. Rimjhim Agnihotri, Shashwat 
Goel, Advs. for the Appellants.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
The plaintiff is in appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment 
and order dated 15.05.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench of the 
Allahabad High Court allowing Second Appeal No.202 of 1980, 
Sudesh Kumar and others vs. Brij Narayan Shukla and others, 
whereby, both the judgments of the First Appeal Court and the 
Trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff appellant was 
dismissed on the ground of limitation being barred by time.
2.	
Dispute relates to an area of 3500 sq. ft. (70 ft. x 50 ft.) (2 Biswa 12 
Biswani) of Plot No.1019 situated in Village Hardoi within the limits 
of Nagar Palika Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claimed title 
through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.1966 from the erstwhile 
Zamindar Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal. They also claimed to have 
received possession pursuant to the sale deed. It is also relevant 
to mention that the land purchased was an open piece of land. In 
1975, when the appellant
tried to raise the construction over the land 
purchased, the defendants objected and caused hindrance giving 
rise to the filing of the suit in question on 28.05.1975, registered as 
O.S.No.161 of 1975 praying for the relief of injunction with alternative 
relief for possession.
3.	
The defendant respondent filed their written statement primarily 
alleging that there had been prior proceedings between Rai Bahadur 
Mohan Lal and his co-sharers and their tenants (ancestors of the 
respondent) in the year 1944 where a suit was filed for arrears of 
rent with respect to Plot No.1019, 1022 and 1023.
62
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
3.1	 Further under the settlement between the Zamindar and co-
sharers, the land in question came to Siddheshwari Narain 
and Deep Chandra in a private partition and as such these 
co-sharers became the owners of the land. 
3.2	 The defendant respondents having continued in possession at 
the time of abolition of Zamindari, became the owners. 
3.3	 Lastly, it was contended that soon after the sale deed of January, 
1966 in favour of plaintiff appellant, there was proceedings under 
section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 in May, 
1966. In the said proceedings, it was found that the defendant 
respondents were in possession.
4.	
Both the parties led evidence, both documentary and oral. The Trial 
Court found the plaintiff appellant to be the owner of the land in 
dispute as also in possession and accordingly decreed the suit for 
injunction vide judgment dated 19.09.1979. 
5.	
The Trial Court had placed reliance upon the sale deed, the Mutation 
and the Khasra and Khewat entries. Further, the Trial Court had 
held that the proceedings under section 145 CrPC would not be of 
any benefit to the defendant respondents as it was not clear from 
the material placed that the said proceedings related to the land in 
question. 
6.	
The defendant respondent preferred appeal before the District Judge 
which was registered as Civil Appeal No.14 of 1979. The District 
Judge, Hardoi, vide judgment dated 29.11.1979 dismissed the
appeal. 
It however did not agree with a couple of findings recorded by the 
Trial Court and accordingly, recorded its own findings. According to 
the appellate court, the proceedings under section 145 CrPC were 
related to the land in dispute and that the possession of the defendant 
respondent was found over the land in dispute. It accordingly decreed 
the suit for possession and not for injunction as had been done by 
the Trial Court. The Appellate Court further held that the plaintiff-
appellants were the owners of the land in dispute and they had been 
successful in establishing their title.
1	
 CrPC
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
63
BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. v. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS 
SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
7.	
Another finding recorded by the Appellate Court was that the land 
in dispute was a non-agricultural land and there was no question of 
abolition of Zamindari with respect to the said land and therefore the 
claim of the defendants of becoming the owners on the abolition of 
Zamindari was not correct. It further found that the suit for arrears of 
rent filed in 1944 was with respect to some other land and not the 
land in dispute in as much as the suit land was vacant open piece 
of land whereas the 1944 suit for arrears of rent was with respect 
to the house of the defendants. Even the plot areas in the two suits 
were different. The Plot No.1019 being a huge piece of land where 
as the plaintiff appellant had purchased only a part of it, they had 
derived valid title from the Zamindars, the erstwhile owners.
8.	
It accordingly held that the period of 12 years for perfecting rights on 
the basis of adverse possession would commence from 1966 and 
the suit having been filed in 1975 was well within time. 
9.	
The defendant respondent preferred Second Appeal before the High 
Court which was registered as Second Appeal No.202 of 1980. It 
is this appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment 
giving rise to the present appeal. The High Court dismissed the suit 
of the appellant on the ground of limitation as according to it, the 
defendant respondent had
matured their rights or rather perfected 
their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 
when the first suit for arrears of rent was filed. We are, however, of 
the firm view that the High Court fell in serious error in holding so, 
for the following reasons:
9.1	 It has not dealt with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and 
the First Appeal Court with respect to the issue of Limitation 
and the evidence considered by them. 
9.2	 The High Court was hearing the Second Appeal under section 
100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 and it having reappreciated 
the findings to disturb findings of fact, committed an error.
9.3	 The High Court has not recorded any finding that the plaintiff 
appellants were not the owners or that they have failed to prove 
the ownership. 
2	
CPC
64
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
9.4	 The suit of the year 1944 was for the arrears of rent and not 
relating to any dispute of possession. The defendant respondents 
were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive 
as against the then landlords. There was no question of them 
claiming any adverse possession from 1944.
9.5	 In our considered view, the plaintiff appellants got their 
ownership/title under the registered sale deed on 21.01.1966. 
The dispute for possession vis-à-vis the defendant respondents 
would arise only after the said date and not on any date prior 
to it. Admittedly from the date of the sale deed, the suit was 
filed within the period of 12 years in May, 1975. Even if it is 
assumed that the defendant respondents were in possession 
from prior to 1944, 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. There were 
no proceedings for possession prior to 1966. 
9.6	 Further, the first appellate court having recorded a specific 
finding that the land in suit was not covered by Zamindari 
Abolition as it was non-agricultural land, the claim of ownership 
from the date of abolition of Zamindari was also without any 
merit. The finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. 
The defendant-respondents thus having failed to establish their 
title, would have no right to retain the possession. 
10.	 Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed, the impugned judgment and order 
of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court 
decreeing the suit for possession is maintained.
11.	 There shall be no order as to costs.
12.	 Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.