Deity's Title Cannot Be Defeated By Adverse Possession Claims Against 'Sebait'/Manager: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that debutter property vested in a deity enjoys strong legal protection and that a plea of adverse possession cannot succeed unless hostile title is clearly asserted against the deity as the true owner. Dismissing a second appeal in a decades-old property dispute, Justice Sugato Majumdar held that permissive occupation of a tank dedicated to a deity could not ripen into ownership merely by long possession, particularly when the defendants failed to establish any overt act denying the deity's title.The dispute concerned a tank measuring about 20 decimals in Plot No. 235, which had originally been purchased by Gnandra Nath Dey and subsequently dedicated to the plaintiff deity through a registered arpannama. The plaintiffs, as shebaits, claimed that one Giribala had been allowed to use the tank only permissively. After her death, her children continued to occupy the property but refused to hand over possession and denied the deity's ownership, prompting the suit for recovery of khas possession. The defendants, however, contended that Giribala had acquired independent rights and that their long, open and continuous possession had matured into title by adverse possession.While the Trial Court accepted the defendants' case and dismissed the suit, the First Appellate Court reversed the finding, holding that the possession was permissive and that mere passage of time could not establish adverse title. Upholding this reversal, the High Court closely examined the evidence and noted that earlier suits had been instituted by or on behalf of the deity seeking recovery of possession, which contradicted the claim of uninterrupted hostile occupation. The Court also observed that documentary records described Giribala's possession as permissive and that the defendants had failed to produce pleadings from earlier litigations that could substantiate their claim.Significantly, the Court stressed that for adverse possession to succeed, hostility must be directed against the true owner. In the present case, even according to the defendants' own admissions, any alleged hostile assertion was against Gnandra Nath Dey and not against the deity, in whom the property legally vested. The Court held that such possession could not be treated as adverse to the deity. It further clarified that a gratuitous or permissive occupier cannot silently transform possession into ownership without clear, unequivocal acts denying the title of the real owner.Concluding that the defendants had failed to establish adverse possession or any independent right over the debutter property, the Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the decree for recovery of possession. The defendants were directed to vacate the suit tank within sixty days, failing which the plaintiffs were at liberty to initiate execution proceedings and seek mesne profits.Case: Gobinda Middya & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Dey & OrsCase No: SA/773/1987Click here to read order

Deity's Title Cannot Be Defeated By Adverse Possession Claims Against 'Sebait'/Manager: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

Deity's Title Cannot Be Defeated By Adverse Possession Claims Against 'Sebait'/Manager: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers