Title and possession over vacant land upheld; adverse possession failed, but demolition relief was refused due to acquiesced constructions.
Title to vacant land was supported by the grant order, revenue records, survey bifurcation and admissions, while challenge to mutation entries did not defeat the underlying grant. Mandatory injunction for demolition was refused because the constructions had stood openly for decades and the plaintiff had acquiesced, making demolition inequitable. Adverse possession failed for want of clear pleadings, hostile possession and proof of ouster; bare revenue entries were insufficient. Limitation did not bar the suit because the cause for declaratory relief arose when title was challenged. Permanent injunction was granted for the vacant land, with protection against interference but excluding the constructed portion.
Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff established title to the schedule properties; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory injunction for demolition of constructions and delivery of the constructed portion; (iii) whether the plaintiff was in possession of the schedule properties and whether the suit was barred by limitation or defeated by adverse possession; and (iv) whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction.
Issue (i): whether the plaintiff established title to the schedule properties.
Analysis: The grant order showed that the same government order allotted 25 acres to the plaintiff and 20 acres to the defendant out of the original survey number. The evidence, revenue records, bifurcation of the survey number, and the defendant's own admissions supported the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff's land was subsequently renumbered as the schedule properties. The Court also noted that the defendant's challenge to the mutation entries did not dislodge the underlying grant in favour of the plaintiff.
Conclusion: The plaintiff established title to the vacant extent in the schedule properties and leasehold rights in the leased extent, and this finding was in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory injunction for demolition of constructions and delivery of the constructed portion.
Analysis: Mandatory injunction is discretionary and is ordinarily refused where the plaintiff stood by while the construction was raised, especially when substantial structures were completed over many years and the plaintiff did not take prompt steps to stop the work. The evidence showed that the constructions were raised openly from about 1974, educational institutions were functioning for decades, and the plaintiff had acquiesced in the situation. The Court held that demolition at that stage would be inequitable.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to mandatory injunction, and this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff was in possession of the schedule properties and whether the suit was barred by limitation or defeated by adverse possession.
Analysis: Revenue entries initially stood in the names of both parties, and the defendant failed to prove ouster of the plaintiff or any pleaded starting point for adverse possession. Mere long possession or mutation entries in the defendant's favour were held insufficient to establish adverse possession without clear pleadings and proof of hostile possession. On limitation, the Court held that the cause for declaratory relief arose when the defendant challenged the plaintiff's title in 1994, so the suit was within time. Possession was held to follow title for the vacant land, while the constructed portion remained with the defendant.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was held to be in possession of the vacant schedule land, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the plea of adverse possession failed, all in favour of the appellant.
Issue (iv): whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction.
Analysis: Since the plaintiff's title and possession over the vacant land were established, and there was a threat of interference, the plaintiff was entitled to protection against interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property, excluding the constructed portion where the defendant's buildings stood.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction in respect of the vacant schedule properties, in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of declaration of title, possession-related protection over the vacant land, and permanent injunction, while the prayer for demolition and delivery of the constructed portion was refused.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff who proves title and possession of vacant land cannot be defeated by bare revenue entries or an unpleaded claim of adverse possession, but mandatory demolition relief will be denied where the plaintiff acquiesced in long-standing constructions and did not act with promptness.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
