Permissive possession doesn't mature into adverse possession without overt acts against true owner, rules Calcutta High Court
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Sugato Majumdar, dismissed an appeal challenging a First Appellate Court decision concerning the doctrine of adverse possession. The case, Gobinda Middya and Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar Dey and Ors., revolved around a contentious claim of adverse possession of a tank (Plot No. 235) which was initially owned by Upendra Nath Bera and later dedicated to a deity by Gnandra Nath Dey through a registered deed of Arpannama.
The appellants, heirs of Giribala, who had been in permissive possession of the property, contended that their possession matured into adverse possession. The trial court initially sided with the appellants, declaring their possession adverse due to continuous and public occupation for over 25 years. However, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that mere assertion of adverse possession without clear hostility towards the true owner, the deity, was insufficient.
Justice Majumdar, while upholding the First Appellate Court's decision, reiterated the principles governing adverse possession. The court noted that the hostile title must be asserted against the true owner, not merely any individual. The court found that the appellants had not exerted a hostile claim against the deity but only against Gnandra Nath Dey, hence failing to satisfy the legal requirements for adverse possession. Moreover, the appellants had not provided evidence of any overt acts demonstrating hostility against the true owner.
The judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between permissive and adverse possession, noting that permissive occupiers, akin to gratuitous licensees, are liable to eviction under due process of law. The court directed the appellants to deliver possession of the property to the respondents within sixty days, failing which, an execution proceeding may be initiated.
This ruling affirms the legal stance that claims of adverse possession require unequivocal acts of hostility against the true owner and not against intermediaries or individuals without ownership rights.
Bottom Line:
Adverse possession requires hostile title exerted against the true owner, not merely against an individual. Permissive possession does not convert into adverse possession without overt acts showing hostility against the true owner.
Statutory provision(s):
- Principles of Adverse Possession
- Civil Procedure regarding Possession and Eviction
- Property Law concerning Debutter Property
Gobinda Middya v. Sudhir Kumar Dey, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857826
