Possession of Land Ordinarily Follows Title Where Continuous Cultivation Is Supported by Revenue Records

The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) claimed ownership and possession of ancestral agricultural land in Khasra No. 15/22/1, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi

They alleged that on May 20, 2012, the Appellants (Defendants), who own adjoining lands, demolished boundary pillars and attempted to merge the Suit Property with their own

The Respondents filed a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction. The Appellants contended that the Respondents’ rights had extinguished by lapse of time, and they had been in possession since the 1975-76 consolidation

The Trial Court granted a Permanent Injunction protecting the Respondents' possession but denied the Mandatory Injunction for restoring pillars

The First Appellate Court upheld this decision

The Appellants filed this Regular Second Appeal (RSA) under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the suit was barred under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954

2. Whether the Respondents (Plaintiffs) established physical possession of the Suit Property sufficient to merit a decree of Permanent Injunction

3. Whether a substantial question of law arose for the High Court’s interference in a Regular Second Appeal

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits the High Court's jurisdiction in Second Appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, regarding the jurisdictional bar on civil courts for certain land matters

The Court also addressed the evidentiary value of Revenue Records (Khasra Girdawari and Khatauni) and the principle that in cases of vacant land, "possession follows title"

Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy on the requirements for injunction suits

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi regarding the weight of admissions

The Court found that the Appellants’ own witness (DW1) admitted the Respondents were the recorded owners in revenue records

Although the Appellants argued that the lack of an independent passage (rasta) proved the Respondents could not cultivate the land, the Court accepted the Halka Patwari’s testimony that hundreds of plots lack independent access and owners typically use adjoining fields

The Court analyzed the Khasra Girdawari for 2016-2018, which recorded the Respondents' cultivation of a Jowar crop, thereby establishing current possession

Regarding the Appellants' argument that the Respondents admitted dispossession in police complaints, the Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts—based on revenue records and a signed Demarcation Report—solidly established the Respondents' possession.

Finally, the Court determined that the challenge was based entirely on findings of fact, not law

The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the Respondents/Plaintiffs proved their possession through revenue records and title. The decree of Permanent Injunction restraining the Appellants from interfering with the Suit Property was upheld, and all pending applications were disposed of