Depositing Electricity Bills & Property Tax In Previous Owner's Name Demolishes Claim Of Ownership By Adverse Possession: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a person claiming ownership of a property by adverse possession cannot succeed where he has been depositing electricity bills and property tax in the name of the previous owner, observing that such conduct amounts to an acknowledgment of the previous owner's title and demolishes the plea of adverse possession. Justice Sandeep Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the rejection of a plaint seeking permanent injunction on the basis of alleged ownership acquired through adverse possession.The bench further held that showing the property as one's address in documents such as an arms licence, vehicle registration, insurance policies, income tax records and the records of the Registrar of Companies does not prove adverse possession, as none of these documents require the applicant to own the property shown as his address.“If a person is living in a rented/leased accommodation, or with a relative as a licensee, even then, he can obtain the above mentioned documents and get his name entered in the official records by mentioning the address of the rented/leased accommodation or the address where he is residing as a licensee, as his residential address. Hence, if the plaintiff has obtained the above documents from the State and Central Government it does not imply that his ownership of the disputed property has been accepted by them or the above documents were in the knowledge of the defendant no.1.”The plaintiff filed a suit claiming to have become owner of a house in Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad by adverse possession. He pleaded that the property was purchased by defendant no. 1 in 1987, but that he had been in open, continuous and hostile possession of it since 1.1.1996, to the knowledge of defendant no. 1. He relied on revolver licence, telephone and gas connections, vehicle registrations, insurance policies, voter cards, company and tax records which showed the disputed property as his address. However, the house tax and electricity bills of the property, which he was depositing, stood in the name of the previous owner, Capt. Vinod Kumar.It was pleaded that in 2019, defendant no. 1 executed a gift deed of the property in favour of a trust and its chairman (defendants no. 2 and 3). On 17.9.2021, the defendants unsuccessfully attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought only a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and from alienating the property.Defendants no. 2 and 3 moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, that a trespasser cannot claim injunction against the true owner. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no relief of declaration had been claimed. The Trial Court rejected the plaint, holding that 12 years' continuous possession was not made out from the plaint averments. Plaintiff challenged the order before the High Court in First Appeal. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram and M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya, the Court observed that a person claiming ownership by adverse possession must establish when and how he came into possession, that his possession was open, hostile and continuous for over 12 years, and that it was to the knowledge of the true owner. The Court observed that the plaint was silent on how the plaintiff came into possession of the property, and nothing showed that defendant no. 1, who resided in Bijnor, about 150 kms from Ghaziabad, knew of the plaintiff's possession. No legal notice asserting a hostile claim was ever given to him, held the Court. It further held that by depositing the electricity bills and property tax in the name of the previous owner, the plaintiff had himself acknowledged the previous owner's title.“Both the above facts, prove that plaintiff has acknowledged by depositing the electricity bill and property tax that the owner of the disputed property is Capt. Vinod Kumar, as such, the plaintiffs case of ownership by adverse possession is demolished. It is very surprising that why plaintiff failed to get the electricity connection transferred in his name and also failed to get his name mutated in the records of the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, if he was the owner of the disputed property.”Referring to Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court further observed that since the plaintiff's title was not acknowledged by the actual owner of the disputed property, a suit for injunction simpliciter was not maintainable against the true owner without seeking declaration of title. It held that the plaintiff had claimed neither declaration of his ownership nor cancellation of the gift deed executed by defendant no.1. It held that both reliefs, governed by a 3-year limitation, had become time-barred.The Court also observed that defendants no. 2 and 3 became owners of the property on 18.1.2019 under the gift deed, if the plaintiff was...

Depositing Electricity Bills & Property Tax In Previous Owner's Name Demolishes Claim Of Ownership By Adverse Possession: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Depositing Electricity Bills & Property Tax In Previous Owner's Name Demolishes Claim Of Ownership By Adverse Possession: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers