Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit
house . The suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs. – High court reversed the same and held that the defendants have perfected their title by way of adverse possession basing upon certain paid tax receipts and khatian extracts.
Apex court held that We fail to comprehend why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimising possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to lose his possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. In our considered view, there is an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession. We recommend the Union of India to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession – we find that there is no absolute requirement to deem the mere possession of the suit property by the defendants to amount to adverse possession over the suit property. This would be in clear violation of the basic rights of the actual owner of the property. There is nothing on record to show that the defendants� permissive possession over the property became adverse to the interest of the real owner, at any point of time. On the contrary, the records reveal that the permissive possession of the
defendants continued till the filing of the suit. The defendants have relied upon certain paid tax receipts and khatian extracts. The Trial Court has, on facts, specifically found that these documents do not disclose the khatian and plot number, and even the tax receipts do not relate to the suit house. Also, the chaukidari receipts (A1 to A16) do not contain the khatian of the suit house. These receipts have been unfortunately believed to prove that the defendants are in adverse possession of the disputed land. Even assuming that those documents relate to the suit house, they, at the most, depict the possession of the defendants and not their adverse possession. Having regard to the totality of the facts, in our considered opinion, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court are not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the contesting defendants
have perfected their title by adverse possession. In view of the same, the judgment of the High Court as also the judgment of the 9 th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah are set aside. The judgments of the Trial Court is restored. Appeal is allowed