VIJAY BHAWAR AND ORS. Vs. AJAIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the following question of law by a Larger Bench, which is arising in large number of cases before this Court as well as before the Subordinate Courts :-

(2.) It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that as far as this Court is concerned, it has been consistently held in several decisions, i.e. Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2006 144 PunLR 159, Dewaki and others v. Dayawanti and others, 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 75, Kanak Ram and others v. Chanan Singh and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 213, Himat Rai v. Kehar Singh, 2008 152 PunLR 624 and Gurudwara Sahib Sanauli v. State of Punjab and others,2009 154 PunLR 756, that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for declaration declaring him to be the owner of a suit property on the plea of adverse possession, as the plea of adverse possession can only be raised in defence in a suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title. But the learned Judge has observed that there are several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and many other High Courts which have upheld the claims of adverse title on the basis of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Des Raj v. Bhagat Ram, 2007 9 SCC 641, Krishnamurthy S. Setlur v. O.V. Narasimha Setty and others, 2007 3 SCC 569, Girja Kumar (2) and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2007 14 SCC 90, and the decisions of other High Courts as well as Privy Council in Dileswar Behera and another v. Benudar Patel, 2008 68 AllIndCas 757 , Govind Yadav v. Deoki Devi, 1980 AIR(Pat) 113, Kodiyan v. Karambir, 2007 2 KerLT 361, Pritam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 5 MPHT 56, Bangalore Development Authority v. Vysya Bank Ltd. (Karnataka), 2005 3 ICC 247, Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, 1934 AIR(PC) 23 and V. Muthiah Pillai v. Vedambal, 1986 AIR(Mad) 106. Keeping in view the principle laid down in these judgments, it has been observed that since there has been a long string of authorities of this court, where the view drawn is contrary to these judgments, therefore, it will be appropriate that the issue be settled by a Larger Bench.

(3.) Before we analyse the aforesaid question of law, a brief narration of facts of this case would be in order.