List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for proving title by adverse possession starts from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff gains ownership. This decision arose in a case where a defendant, claiming adverse possession since 1968, argued that a 1986 dispossession suit was time-barred.  

• The Court clarified that the focus should be on the nature of possession rather than the ownership date. 
• Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held in the matter of Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. 

What was the Background of Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. ? 

• The original plaintiff filed a civil suit in 1986 for recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed from 1968. 
• The defendants contested the suit, claiming the land was joint family property purchased in 1963 in the name of a relative.  
  • They alleged an oral partition in 1976 allotted this land to them. 
• The defendants also claimed they had been in adverse possession of the land since 1968, and that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after 12 years. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the land was joint family property and the suit was time-barred. 
• On appeal, the first appellate court overturned the finding that it was joint family property, but still dismissed the suit as time barred. 
• The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which reversed the lower courts and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favor. 
• The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's judgment. 
• Key issues before the Supreme Court were:  
  • Whether the defendants had established adverse possession 
  • The correct starting point for calculating the limitation period 
  • Whether the defendants' earlier admission of being lessees affected their claim of adverse possession 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession commences from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse, not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership. 
• The Court held that once the plaintiff proves their title over the suit property, it is incumbent upon the defendant claiming adverse possession to establish that they perfected title through adverse possession. 
• The Court states that as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises for the plaintiff, but from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. 
• The Court observed that when the defendant was holding possession of the suit property as a lessee, they could not claim adverse possession over the property, as the defendant's possession could only be termed as 'permissive possession'. 
• The Court reiterated that tenants or lessees cannot claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor, as the nature of their possession is permissive. 
• The Court observed that the defendants failed to establish the time from which their possession was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff, which must be open and continuous for the prescriptive period. 
• The Court concluded that the requirements to constitute adverse possession were not established by the defendants in this case. 

What is Adverse Possession? 

• Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to acquire title to real property by continuously occupying it without the owner's permission for a statutorily defined period. 
• The concept is primarily governed by the Limitation Act of 1963, which sets the statutory period as 12 years for private property and 30 years for government-owned land. 
• The 22nd Law Commission's recent report provides a thorough examination of adverse possession and its implications in property law and recommended that no changes are necessary in the existing provisions under the Limitation Act of 1963. 
  • The concept of adverse possession stems from the idea that land must not be left vacant but instead, be put to judicious use. 
• The possession must be "adverse" to the true owner's rights, meaning the possessor must occupy the property without the owner's consent and in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights. 
• If all elements are met, the original owner's right to reclaim the property is extinguished, and the adverse possessor gains legal title. 
• The doctrine serves to promote productive use of land, penalize negligent landowners, and provide certainty in property ownership after extended periods. 
• Courts have consistently held that adverse possession cannot be claimed against property held by the government for public purposes, and the burden of proving all elements lies with the person claiming adverse possession. 
• If the original owner loses rights due to adverse possession, the property must transfer to the person who has been in possession and has interest in it. 

What are the Essential Elements of Adverse Possession ? 

• Actual:  
  • Physical occupation or use of the property as a true owner would. 
• Open:  
  • Visible and apparent possession, not hidden or secretive. 
• Notorious:  
  • Widely known in the community, such that others would recognize the trespasser as the apparent owner. 
• Hostile:  
  • Possession without the true owner's permission, infringing on their rights. 
• Exclusive:  
  • Sole control by the trespasser, excluding the true owner and others. 
• Continuous: 
  •  Uninterrupted possession for the full statutory period (e.g., 12 years for private land, 30 years for government land). 

What are the Important Provisions Related to Adverse Possession? 

• Article 65, Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963:  
  • Imposes a 12-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. 
• Section 27 of the Limitation Act:  
  • Acts as an exception to the principle of adverse possession. 
  • If a person fails to file a suit for recovery of possession within the specified time period, their right to recover possession or ownership of the property is extinguished. 
• Burden of Proof:  
  • The Limitation Act, 1963 shifted the burden of proof to the claimant of adverse possession. 
  • The person claiming title through adverse possession must prove their claim. 
• Acquisition of Ownership:  
  • Under the Limitation Act, 1963:  
  • For private land: Possession for over 12 years can lead to ownership. 
  • For government land: Possession for over 30 years can lead to ownership. 
• Historical Context:  
  • Article 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (predecessor to the 1963 Act) required the petitioner to prove actual ownership for a continuous period of 12 years. 

What are Landmark Judgments on Adverse Possession? 

• Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004):  
  • Established that a proprietor is considered in control of property as long as there's no interruption. 
  • Non-use of property by the owner for a long time doesn't affect title. 
  • However, if someone else claims rights over the property and the owner fails to take legal action for years, the situation can change. 
• Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati:  
  • Defined adverse possession as when a person without right enters into possession of another's property, continues possession claiming title, and after 12 years acquires title due to inaction of the real owner. 
• Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah:  
  • Clarified that mere continuous possession is not enough for adverse possession. 
  • Possession must be open, hostile, exclusive, and with assertion of ownership rights to the knowledge of the true owner. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held that a daughter is obligated to maintain her mother.                 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Sangeeta Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another. 

What was the Background of Sangeeta Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another Case? 

• The parties in this case consisted of applicant and the opponent who is the mother of the applicant. 
• The High Court had earlier passed an order on 14th August 2024 whereby the Court observed that since the opponent is the mother of the applicant hence there is a possibility of settlement. Thus, the Court issued notice to the opposite party returnable at an early date. 
• The complainant in this case was admitted in Ispat Hospital Bhatha Road, Gosaintola, Ranchi, South Chota Nagpur Division, Jharkhand. 
• The Application was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging order of the Family Court directing the daughter to pay Rs. 8000 per month towards the maintenance of the mother. 
• Thus, the issue was before the Allahabad High. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Applicant submitted that she would visit her mother at the hospital and try to meet her as a mother and not as a opponent. 
• The Applicant daughter was also directed to discharge her responsibility towards her mother by paying at least 25% of the outstanding amount of medical expenses incurred on her mother admitted to the hospital. 
• The Court also in this case advised both the parties to try to resolve the issue. In this respect the Court also referred to a Doha of Rahim and the teachings of Taittiriya Upanishad.      

What is Maintenance? 

• The maintenance generally covers the expenses for essentials for the substance of life. However, it is not merely a right for survival of the claimant. 
• The term 'Maintenance' has also been defined under Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
• It includes provision for food, clothing, shelter, and basic needs such as education and medical expenses. 

What are the Provisions Regarding Maintenance to Parents ? 

• Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) 
  • Section 20 provides for maintenance of children and aged parents. 
  • Section 20 (1) of HAMA provides that a Hindu is bound to maintain his or her aged or infirm parents. 
  • Further, Section 20 (3) of HAMA provides that the obligation to maintain infirm parents extends only in so far as the infirm parent is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.   
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 
  • The provision of maintenance to parents is contained in Section 144 of BNSS. Earlier it was found in Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • Section 125 (1) of CrPC and Section 144 (1) of BNSS provides that a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain certain category of person can be ordered to pay maintenance to them. 
  • The category of persons whom a person is obligated to maintain includes “his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself”. 
  • This is secular and applies to all citizens. 
• Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPS)   
  • Section 4 of the Act lays down provision regarding maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens. 
  • Section 4 (1) provides that a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5. 
  • The persons from whom maintenance can be asked for is enumerated under Section 4 (1) as follows: 
    • In case of Parent or grand parent application can be filed against one or more of his children not being a minor 
    • In case of a childless senior citizen application can be filed against such of the relatives referred in Section 2 (g) of the Act. 
  • Further, Section 4 (3) provides that the obligation to maintain parents extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. 

Is a Daughter Liable to Maintain her Parents? 

• This issue was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Manohar Arbat v. Kashiram Rajara Sawai (1987). 
  • The contention in this case was that the daughter was not liable to maintain her parents as the term used in Section 125 (1) (d) is “his father or mother”. 
  • The Court held that the term ‘his’ does not exclude the daughter from liability. 
  • Section 2(y) of CrPC provides that the words and expressions used herein and not defined shall have the same meaning as provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Section 8 of IPC provides that the pronoun ‘he’ and it’s derivatives shall include both male or female. 
  • Thus Section 8 of IPC read with Section 2 (y) of CrPC would indicate that the pronoun ‘his’ in Section 125 (1) (d) includes both male and female. 
  • Further the Court also held that it is the moral obligation of the children to maintain their parents. In case daughters are excused from the liability to maintain the parents having no son would go destitute.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Renjith K.G. & Others V. Sheeba has held that a third party may file a suit under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) during pendency of litigation to claim his rights. 

What was the Background of Renjith K.G. & Others V. Sheeba Case? 

• In the present case, the original dispute centered around a property which originally belonged to one Ayyapan (deceased), who had eight children. 
• Ayyapan executed two mortgages in favor of Kunjan (deceased), in 1911 and 1919 respectively. 
• After Ayyapan's death, six of his children assigned their 6/8 shares to Raghuthaman (Third Party) by gift deed. The remaining 2/8 shares were obtained by Defendant No.1, Padmanabhan (judgement debtor) 
• Upon the death of the mortgagee Kunjan, his rights devolved to Defendant No.1 and the original plaintiff (decree holder) Padmakshy (who was a minor at that time). 
• Defendant No.1, without Padmakshy's concurrence, executed a mortgage for Rs.1,000/- in favor of one Nanu. Nanu subsequently assigned his right to Defendant NO. 10 (Veeran) who subsequently assigned his rights to Raghunatham. 
• Padmakshy filed a suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of her share in the immovable properties. 
•  A final decree was passed allocating one half portion of the property to the plaintiff and directing Defendant No.10 to pay certain sums for equalization and mesne profits. 
• The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition to execute the decree and a portion of the property was delivered to the plaintiff as per the decree. 
• Subsequently, Raghuthaman filed applications under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC seeking re-delivery of the property, injunction, and damages. All the three applications were jointly heard and were dismissed by the Trial court. 
• Aggrieved, the same execution appeals were filed before the Kerela High Court which also got dismissed. 
• The application was filed by the legal representatives of Raghuthaman to review the said judgement which was re heard by the High Court and the application was subsequently allowed. 
• The same order has been challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • A person who is not a party to the original decree (a third party) has the right to approach the court under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code if they are dispossessed from a property during the execution of a decree. 
  •  The term "any person" in Order XXI Rule 99 includes a pendente lite transferee (someone who acquired an interest in the property while litigation was pending) who was not impleaded in the original suit. 
  • A pendente lite purchaser has the right to defend their rights, title, interest, and possession of the property. 
  • When a third party resists the delivery of property, it is incumbent on the decree holder to implead them by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC. 
  • Once an application under Order XXI Rule 99 is filed, the trial court must consider all rival claims, including the right, title, and interest of the parties under Order 21 Rule 101 of CPC 
  • Order 21 Rule 101 bars a separate suit by mandating the execution court to decide the dispute. 
  • Regarding limitation for execution of a partition decree, the time begins to run from the date of the final decree, not from the date it is engrossed on stamp paper. The engrossment of a final decree in a partition suit relates back to the date of the decree. 
  • A party cannot stop the running of the limitation period by their own act of not furnishing stamp paper for engrossment of the decree. 
  • The starting of the limitation period for execution of a partition decree cannot be made contingent upon the engrossment of the decree on stamp paper. 
• The Supreme Court therefore,  
  • Affirmed the High Court's decision to set aside the order passed in the Execution Petition and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. 
  • Left all issues, including the independent right, title, or interest claimed by the respondents in the property, to be adjudicated by the trial court. 

Landmark Judgements 

• Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. v. Hari Das (D) by LRs. (2005) 
  • In this case the Court held that for a partition decree, the limitation period begins from the date of the final decree, not from when it's engrossed on stamp paper. 
  • It was ruled that a party can't delay the start of the limitation period by not furnishing stamp paper. 
  • The Court emphasized that the engrossment of a decree on stamp paper relates back to the date of the decree. 
• Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust (2022) 
  •   In this case the court distinguished between the rights of a decree holder and a third party in execution proceedings. 
  • It clarified that only a decree holder can file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. 
  • The Court explained that Order XXI Rule 99 is applicable to a person who has been dispossessed of property during execution. 
• Yogesh Goyanka v. Govind (2024) 
  • In this case the Court clarified that transfers made during pending litigation (pendente lite) are not automatically void.  
  • It was held that such transfers are subservient to the rights of the parties in the pending litigation. 
  • The Court supported a liberal approach to allowing subsequent transferees to protect their interests in legal proceedings. 

What is Order XXI Rule 99 under CPC? 

• Order XXI states the rules for Execution of Decrees and Orders Payment under Decree. 
• The term decree has been defined under Section 2(2) of CPC which states that: 
  • Decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include 
    • any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or 
    • any order of dismissal for default. 
• Rule 99: Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser 
  • It states that : 
    • As per Sub rule (1) where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. 
    • As per Sub rule (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.