Non-contesting defendants who did not contest the suit cannot prosecute appeals without independent grounds

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision in Landmark Property Dispute Case

In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings from the trial and first appellate courts in the case of Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) versus Suresh Tukaram Nerkar. The case revolved around a contentious property dispute, focusing on ownership, possession, and the implications of oral partition claims.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Kisan Vithoba Aakhade and others filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of a property, alongside a consequential injunction against Suresh Tukaram Nerkar. The central contention was the possession of an open space adjoining a residential plot, allegedly used by the defendants for dumping waste and manure. The appellants argued that their title deed, marked as Exhibit 81, conveyed a total of 150 square metres, whereas the revenue records indicated possession of only 109.70 square metres at the time of sale.

Trial and Appellate Court Findings

Initially, the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, citing discrepancies in the extent of land covered by the title deed versus the actual possession detailed in revenue records. The courts emphasized the lack of a recovery of possession claim by the plaintiffs and the purported oral partition claims by the defendants, which were not substantiated with evidence or established relationship with the vendor’s family.

High Court’s Reversal

The High Court, however, overturned these findings, highlighting the inadequacy of manure and waste presence on the property as evidence of possession. It deemed the previous findings perverse and recognized the corrected revenue records that aligned with the sale deed specifications. The High Court also dismissed the oral partition claims due to lack of concrete evidence connecting the defendants with the vendor’s family.

Supreme Court’s Affirmation

Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K. Vinod Chandran, presiding over the Supreme Court, affirmed the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the non-contesting defendants. The Supreme Court highlighted several key aspects:

• 1. Declaratory Relief and Possession: The presence of manure and waste on the property does not constitute evidence of possession. Oral partition claims must be supported by credible evidence and familial ties to validate any claims of possession-in-common.

• 2. Revenue Records: Corrections in revenue records during the pendency of the suit do not automatically discredit their authenticity unless disproved by the opposing party. The corrected records, aligning with the sale deed, were upheld.

• 3. Appeal by Non-Contesting Defendants: The Supreme Court underscored that defendants who did not contest the suit initially cannot prosecute appeals based solely on contentions of a co-defendant without independent grounds.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment sets a precedent in property dispute cases, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence in oral partition claims and the sanctity of corrected public records unless challenged convincingly. It also clarifies the procedural limitations for non-contesting parties in appealing judgments.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of thorough documentation and legal compliance in property transactions and disputes, providing clarity and direction for future cases. As the legal community and stakeholders digest this ruling, it is expected to influence property litigation strategies across the country.

This case illustrates the complexity of property law and the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing legal principles to ensure justice is served, safeguarding rightful ownership and possession against unsubstantiated claims.

Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) v. Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2776001