Introduction  

• In this case, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the High Court and the Trial Court. 

Facts 

• In this case, the defendant filed a suit against the appellant before the trial court to grant the permanent restraining injunction refraining the defendant from interfering with the defendant’s property. 
• The defendant also filed for possession of the land and for demolishing the structure built upon her land by the appellant. 
• The trial court delivered the judgement in favor of defendant decreeing her the owner of the encroached land. 
• The appellant then filed the first appeal before the appellate court, where the appellate court reversed the judgement delivered the judgement in the favor of appellant giving him the right of ownership on the encroached land and was held entitled for the compensation. 
• The defendant then filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the 1st Appellate Court and confirmed the order of the trial court. 
• The appellant, in furtherance to the decision of the High Court filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the construction on an encroached land is protected under Section 51 of the Constitution of India? 
• Whether silence of defendant at the time of construction would amount to estoppel of her right to claim her property in question? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court stated that to fall under the scope of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the claimant must prove that he is the transferee of the encroached land, and he must be in possession of the land. 
  • It was stated that his possession must not have been by mere possession of another but adverse to the title of the true owner and he must be under the bone fide belief that he has secured good title to the property in question and is the owner of that property. 
• It was also observed by the Supreme Court that defendant not objecting at the time of construction has amounted appellate a heavy expense and for that mandatory injunction will not be granted and he will also be entitled for the compensation but that doesn’t suffice to deny her from her right to demolish any construction built on her land. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order made by the High Court and held that an encroacher must not be benefited under the provisions of Section 51 of TPA, 1882.