| aad
_a period of more than 12 years i is not enough. [288 Dj
GAYA PARSHAD DIKSHIT v. DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR. January 3, 1984 . .
[P.N. BHAGWATI, ActInG Culer Justick AND D.P. Mapon, JJ.]
a
Limitation Act 1963, Article 65, ‘title by adverse possession’>—Claim of—
Licence terminated by notice—Suit for possession—Licence to show by overt act that — he is claming adverse title.
The respondents filed a suit for recovery-of possession of the premises from the appellant after termination of his licence. _ The appellant claimed title by adverse possession.
. t
. “The High’ Court held that mere termination of the licence of a licencee does not enable the licence to claim advetse possession, unless and until he sets up a title hostile to that of the licencer after termination of hisMlicence, and decreed the _suit for possession.
Dismissing the appeal, , ; HELD: I. There must be some overt act on the part of the licencee indicating assertion of hostile title. Mere continuance of unauthorised possession even for
2. It is-not merely unauthorised possession on-termination of his licence - -
. that enables the licencee to- claim title by adverse Possession but there must “be some overt act on the part of the licencee to show that he is claiming adyerse title. It is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose of recovering possession of the premises from the licencee after terminating his licence but that by itself’ cannot enable the licencee to claim title by adverse possession. [288 Cy
In thg, instant case, the High , Court was right ia taking the view that the appellant had not established any title by adverse possession, and that the suit of the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant was not barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [288 EF]
x
Civit APPELLATE Suispicri0N : Civil Appeal No. “81 of 1978,
From the judgment and order dated’ 24th ‘August: {978 of the | Allahabad High Court § in second Appeal No. 1287 of 1974.)
/ 288 2 oO ‘SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [1984] 2 s.c.r.
| Ss Markendeya’ for the Appellint,
‘BC Agarwala for the Respondents, a The ‘J udgment-of the court was delivered by .
~~ a
Bracwar, ActinG: CJ. We. have’ heard the learned counsel .on behalf of the appellant and after hearing him and persuing the judgment: ‘of the. High Court, we find ourselves wholly i in agreement
~. with the’ view taken by the. High Court that mere termination of the licence’ of a licencee does not enable the licencee to claim adverse
_ Possession, unless ‘and until he sets’ up.a title hostile to that of the © licencor after termination of his licence. It is not merely unauthorised possession on termination of his licence that enables the licencee to -
‘claim title by adverse possession but there must be some overt act or the part of the licencee to show that he is claiming adverse title. It
' is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose of . ,tecovering possession. of the premises from the licencee after termina- ting his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licencee to claim
- title by adverse possession. ‘There must be some overt act on the part of the licencee indicating assertion of ‘hostile title. Mére con- tinuance, of unauthorised possession even for a period of more than
12 years is not enough. Here in the present case there is nothing to show that at any time after termination of his licence by Dr, Rama Shanker or by the first repondent the appellant.asserted hostile titie . in himself. The High Court was, therefore, right in taking.the view that the appellant had not established any title by adverse possession and iti that view of the matter," the suit of the first respohdent for ,
* recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant was not barred under article 65 which is the only article of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable in the present case. We accordingly confirm the: - judgnient of the High Court and dismiss the appeal. -
“Mr. Markandeya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the”
‘. appellant, has urged that the appellant has been in possession of the - premises which consist of rooms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shown in fhe Amin’s map .marked .16/5C since. his birth and it would’ cause considerable hardship to him if he were'to be evicted from these rooms immediately and he has, therefore; requested’that sufficient time may be- granted to’ the appellant to vacate these rooms. He has also stated that in the meanwhile the appellant i is prepared to give up. possession of room — No.1 but he may be allowed to continue in possession of room Nos. 4. & 5 for some” reasonable period. This is a reasonable request on | oe
G.P. DIKSHIT v. NIRMAL CHANDER (Bhagwati, Acting, Cd) 289
~ behalf of the appellant. In view of the fact that the appellant has been in possession of rooms Nos. 1, 4 and.5 fora very long pericd and he has 4 son who is studying in ‘school, we are’ ‘inclined to grant
‘time to the appellant to hand over possession of | room Nos. 4 and 5, © provided he gives up: possession of room No. 1 on or before 28th February, . 1984. If the appellant’ hands over ‘vacant and peaceful possession of room No.-} and any other ‘portion of the house. which |
~ may be ih his* own’ occupation apart from room Nos,’ 4 and 5 on or:
before 28th February, 1984 and he and his son file an: ‘affidavit in this Court on or before the’same date-stating- that they are in possession’
‘- and occupation of rooms Nos. 4 and 5 and undertaking that they’ ”
will not induct anyone else in possession or cccupation of these two rooms and will hand-over vacant and pegaceful possession of these -
“two rooms to the Ist respondent on or before 30th June, 1987, ‘the decree for possession against the appellant in respect of rooms Nos..4 “and -5 will not be executed ‘until 30th, June,.1987.. If vacant’ and
_peaceful possession of room No. | is not'handed over by the appellant to the Ist respondent on or béfore 28th February, 1984 or if the appellant and -his son fail to file an affidavit in the aforesaid terms on or before that date, the decree for. possession will become executable forthwith. ge oO s
There will be no order as to « costs throughout
. a
NV.K. a ; . - : Appeal dismissed.