Possession and prior judgments in property disputes: stray acts are insufficient, and earlier same-property decisions may be relevant evidence.

Mere stray acts such as tethering cattle or dumping waste do not establish possession unless they show actual or potential control with animus possidendi. On the facts discussed, the commissioner's report and surrounding evidence were insufficient to displace the respondent's claim of possession, while the lease deed and earlier evidence supported that claim. Prior civil judgments concerning the same property were also treated as admissible and relevant under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even though the appellant was not a party, because they related to an asserted or recognised right over the same property. Concurrent findings were therefore upheld and the decree in the respondent's favour sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the commissioner's report and surrounding evidence established that the appellant was in possession of the suit property so as to defeat the respondent's claim for injunction; (ii) whether earlier civil court judgments concerning the same property were admissible and relevant even though the appellant was not a party to them.

Issue (i): Whether the commissioner's report and surrounding evidence established that the appellant was in possession of the suit property so as to defeat the respondent's claim for injunction.

Analysis: Possession requires actual or potential physical control accompanied by an intention to possess. Mere stray acts such as tethering cattle or storing dung and waste materials do not amount to legal possession. The appellant produced no documentary evidence to support his claim of long possession, whereas the lease deed and the prior evidence accepted by the courts below supported the respondent's possession over the entire property. The commissioner's observations only showed some acts of dumping waste and cow dung, which were insufficient to establish possession or control.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether earlier civil court judgments concerning the same property were admissible and relevant even though the appellant was not a party to them.

Analysis: Previous judgments are admissible under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as transactions in which a right is asserted or recognised, even if they are not judgments inter partes. The earlier suits concerned the same property and the same temple under whom the appellant claimed. Those decisions therefore constituted relevant evidence to prove the respondent's possession and were not excluded merely because the appellant was not a party.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of possession and the evidentiary use of the earlier judgments were upheld, leaving no ground for interference and sustaining the decree in the respondent's favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere acts of storage or dumping do not amount to possession unless accompanied by control and animus possidendi, and a prior judgment concerning the same property is admissible under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as evidence of an asserted or recognised right even against a non-party who claims under the same source.

---