Proof of Ownership via Restored Perpetual Lease Deed Defeats Plea of Adverse Possession Lacking Animus Possidendi

The Plaintiff/Respondent company filed a suit for possession of Quarter No. 90 at Scindia Potteries Labour Quarters Complex, Sarojini Nagar.

The Respondent claimed ownership via a 1921 Perpetual Lease Deed and a subsequent 1923 Indenture.

The Appellant’s predecessor (Bhullan Singh), a retrenched employee, had previously lost a possession suit for Quarter No. 91 but remained in occupation of Quarter No. 90 since approximately 1990 without legal title.

The Appellant contested the suit, claiming the Respondent lacked title due to name changes and L&DO lease cancellation, and alternatively pleaded ownership through adverse possession.

Both the Trial Court (2021) and First Appellate Court (2025) decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent.

1. Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent established a valid title/ownership over the suit property to maintain a suit for possession.

2. Whether the Defendant/Appellant acquired ownership of the suit property by way of adverse possession.

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restricting second appeals to substantial questions of law.

Regarding adverse possession, the court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires the defendant to prove animus possidendi and that possession was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (without force, secrecy, or permission) for a continuous period of 12 years.

The court relied on Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, establishing that mere long possession without a clear assertion of hostile title against the true owner does not constitute adverse possession.

The court rejected the Appellant's challenge to the Respondent's title, noting that while the Respondent's name evolved from Gwalior Potteries (Delhi) Ltd., its identity remained consistent.

It found that although the L&DO had previously entered a re-entry order, a letter dated 20.05.2024 (Ex. RW-2/1) proved the lease was restored upon payment of dues.

The court noted that the Respondent's title over the complex had been upheld in multiple prior litigations, including Hari Kishan v. M/s Scindia Potteries.

On the issue of adverse possession, the court observed that the Appellants failed to provide a specific date when their possession became adverse or hostile to the Respondent.

The testimony of DW-3 and DW-4 was dismissed as hearsay and insufficient to prove animus possidendi, as they could not demonstrate a clear and unequivocal assertion of ownership against the true owner.

The court concluded that the findings of the lower courts were based on facts and did not raise any substantial question of law. The decree for possession in favor of the Respondent was upheld.