Karnataka HC Restores Decree Requiring Longtime Occupant To Hand Over Property After She Failed To Prove Adverse Possession

The plaintiffs sued for possession of a property at Hangal and recovery of rent, claiming ownership under a registered Will dated 21 July 1984 executed by the original owner, Noorahamedkhan Savanur.

They alleged that the defendant occupied the property as a tenant.

The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ title and tenancy, claiming permissive possession followed by adverse possession.

The trial court decreed possession for the plaintiffs; the first appellate court reversed, holding that the Will and the plaintiffs’ title had not been proved.

The plaintiffs appealed under Section 100 CPC.

During the second appeal, the original parties died and their legal representatives were substituted.

The respondent did not appear to contest the second appeal.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies for consideration of a substantial question of law.

The judgment also relied on the principles, as stated in the authorities cited by the appellants, that a tenant generally cannot challenge the validity of the landlord’s Will or set up a title adverse to the landlord: Ghanshyam Dass v. Shakuntla Bakshi, Pandi Bandu v. Sapadu Krishna, Kamaljit Singh v. Sarabjit Singh, and Asharfi Devi v. Shankar.

It referred to Metpalli Lasum Bai v. Metapalli Muthaiah for the proposition that a registered Will may carry a presumption of genuineness.

The first appellate court had rejected the plaintiffs’ title on the ground that the original Will was not produced and the Will had not otherwise been proved.

The High Court nevertheless considered the defendant’s adverse-possession plea, which the first appellate court had rejected and which the defendant had not challenged.

It treated the defendant’s possession as unauthorised and relied on the municipal assessment extract, which recorded the plaintiffs as owners and the defendant as occupier, to conclude that the plaintiffs had established title.

The Court also accepted the appellants’ submission that a tenant could not challenge the landlord’s Will, relying on the cited authorities.

On that basis, it held that the first appellate court had erred in dismissing the suit.

It set aside the first appellate court’s judgment dated 11 February 2010 and restored the trial court’s decree directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property within three months.