Agartala: The Tripura High Court has held that permissive possession does not confer ownership rights and cannot be converted into adverse possession merely because a person has remained in occupation for a long period.
The court made the observation while allowing a second appeal in a property dispute from Dhalai district and restoring the plaintiffs’ title over the disputed land.
A single bench headed by Justice Biswajit Palit, in a judgment delivered on August 3, allowed the second appeal filed by Horo Priya Sarkar and four others, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, which had dismissed their suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
The dispute related to about 0.87 acres of land at Chailengta in Dhalai district. The appellants claimed that the land belonged to their predecessor, Rebati Mohan Sarkar, who had permitted the respondent to occupy a portion of the property in 1988 on the condition that it would be vacated whenever required.
According to the appellants, the respondent later raised constructions and refused to vacate the land despite receiving a legal notice.
The respondents contested the suit, claiming that the property was a joint family asset and asserting that Rebati Mohan Sarkar had held the land as the karta of the family. They also challenged the suit on grounds including limitation, estoppel, and maintainability.
Examining the records, the High Court observed that the respondent had failed to produce any documentary evidence establishing title over the land and had also not pleaded adverse possession. The court noted that both parties admitted that the respondent had been recorded only as a “permissive possessor” in the revenue records.
Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the High Court observed that “permissive possession cannot be construed as adverse possession and possession being permissive cannot become adverse unless hostile animus was expressed at any particular time to the knowledge of the owner.” It further noted that “mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession.”
The court further held that the respondent had sought to defend possession by claiming the property was joint family property and by relying on permissive possession, but had neither established ownership through documentary evidence nor raised a plea of adverse possession.
It observed that “just with the plea of possessing the land as a joint family property and also with the plea of permissive possession by raising constructions cannot be a valid ground to deny the title of the original owner.”
Justice Palit also found that the trial court and the first appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The judgment stated that both courts had “committed error” in dismissing the suit and that their findings were “totally misconceived, not tenable in the eye of law and not supported by any cogent lawful grounds.”
Allowing the appeal, the High Court declared the appellants’ right, title, and interest over the suit land and directed the respondent to vacate and hand over peaceful possession within three months. It added that the decree may be executed through due process of law if the respondent fails to comply.
The judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs in favour of the appellants.