Raviprakash Vs Dalip Singh And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the judgment dated 30.10.2023 by which the trial court had allowed the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint.
The plaintiff claimed that he had become the owner of the disputed residential property by adverse possession. According to the plaint, he had been in continuous physical possession of the property since 01.01.1996 along with his family. To support this claim, he relied upon numerous documents showing the disputed property as his address, including records relating to his business, trade tax registration, Registrar of Companies, bank loans, telephone connection, gas connection, revolver licence, voter identity cards, insurance policies, motor vehicle registrations, school records of his children, and payment of electricity bills and municipal taxes. He contended that the original owner never initiated proceedings for his eviction within the prescribed period and that his possession had matured into ownership by adverse possession on expiry of twelve years. He also alleged that despite his adverse possession, the original owner executed a gift deed in favour of defendants nos. 2 and 3 in January 2019 and later attempted to dispossess him, leading to the filing of a suit seeking a permanent injunction.
The defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. They argued that the plaintiff had not acquired title by adverse possession, had not sought declaration of ownership or cancellation of the gift deed, and therefore a suit seeking only permanent injunction was not maintainable.
The trial court accepted the application and rejected the plaint. Challenging that order, the plaintiff argued before the High Court that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff could be considered. He contended that those averments sufficiently established continuous, open and hostile possession for more than twelve years. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the plaint failed to disclose how the plaintiff entered into possession, how the alleged hostile possession came to the knowledge of the true owner, and why no declaration of title or challenge to the gift deed had been sought.
The High Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC by referring to several Supreme Court decisions explaining that only the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are relevant at that stage. The Court noted that although the allegations in the plaint are ordinarily assumed to be true, courts are not required to accept patently untenable claims or clever drafting that merely creates an illusion of a cause of action. If the plaint itself discloses that the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a real cause of action, rejection of the plaint is mandatory.
The Court also examined the settled principles governing adverse possession. It observed that a person claiming title by adverse possession must specifically plead and establish how and when possession commenced, the nature of possession, that such possession was open, hostile and continuous, that it was to the knowledge of the true owner, and that the claimant possessed the necessary hostile intention (animus possidendi). Mere long possession or production of documents showing residence at the property is insufficient.
Applying those principles, the Court found several deficiencies in the plaint. It observed that the plaintiff had nowhere pleaded how he entered into possession of the disputed property. Nor had he explained how the true owner acquired knowledge of the alleged hostile possession. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff, such as business records, licences, vehicle registrations, insurance policies and tax records, merely reflected his residential address and did not establish ownership or prove that the true owner was aware of any hostile claim.
The Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted that electricity bills continued to stand in the name of the previous owner and that municipal taxes were also being paid in that owner’s name. The plaintiff had not sought mutation in his own name or transfer of the electricity connection. According to the Court, these facts amounted to acknowledgment of the previous owner’s title and undermined the plea of adverse possession. The Court also noted that although the plaintiff had obtained bank loans, he had mortgaged another property rather than the disputed property, indicating that he possessed no title documents relating to the disputed property.
The Court also found that after execution of the gift deed on 18.01.2019 in favour of defendants nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff could not claim ownership by adverse possession against them before expiry of the prescribed period. Further, the plaintiff neither sought a declaration of title nor challenged the gift deed by seeking its cancellation. Since there was a cloud over the plaintiff’s alleged title, a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction was held to be legally not maintainable.
Holding that the plaint failed to disclose a sustainable cause of action and that the suit was barred under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 were upheld.
