Title to unsold land and superstructures cannot pass by implication; delay and permissive possession do not defeat ownership.

Title to survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 remained with the applicant because those lands, and the superstructures standing exclusively on them, were not included in the sale conveyance to respondent no. 3. Mere long possession did not establish adverse possession without hostile, open and continuous assertion of adverse title, and delay alone did not extinguish ownership. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable because there was no consented transfer by an ostensible owner. Respondent no. 3 therefore acquired no title to the unsold superstructures, and any restoration of possession was made conditional on assessment and payment of construction cost.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lands bearing survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 belonged to the applicant and whether the superstructures standing thereon formed part of the sale in favour of respondent no. 3; (ii) Whether the applicant's claim was barred by delay, adverse possession, or estoppel under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (iii) Whether respondent no. 3 could continue to occupy the superstructures without a sale of those structures or a lawful right to the land.

Issue (i): Whether the lands bearing survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 belonged to the applicant and whether the superstructures standing thereon formed part of the sale in favour of respondent no. 3

Analysis: The ownership of the lands was accepted as belonging to the applicant and not to the company in liquidation. The record also showed that the superstructures on those lands were raised by the company at its own cost. However, the advertisement for sale and the conveyance deed described only the specified company lands and the structures standing on those lands, and did not include survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 or the superstructures standing exclusively on them. The Court, therefore, held that neither the lands nor the superstructures on those lands were sold to respondent no. 3.

Conclusion: The lands survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 belonged to the applicant, and the superstructures on those lands were not part of the sale in favour of respondent no. 3.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant's claim was barred by delay, adverse possession, or estoppel under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Analysis: Mere long possession did not establish adverse possession in the absence of hostile possession, open assertion of adverse title, or proof of the required ingredients. The company's use of the lands was permissive, and no case of hostile possession was made out. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was inapplicable because the applicant had not consented to any transfer as against an ostensible owner, and the company in liquidation was not shown to have such status. Delay by itself also did not extinguish title where no transfer of the property had actually taken place.

Conclusion: The applicant's claim was not barred by adverse possession, estoppel, or delay.

Issue (iii): Whether respondent no. 3 could continue to occupy the superstructures without a sale of those structures or a lawful right to the land

Analysis: Since the superstructures on survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 were not shown to have been sold, respondent no. 3 could not acquire better title than the company had. At the same time, the structures had been erected by the company at its cost, and the Court held that if the applicant sought restoration of possession, the cost of construction would have to be assessed and paid to the Official Liquidator. The Court also clarified that any restoration of possession would not permit eviction of occupants except in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Respondent no. 3 had no title to the superstructures, but restoration of possession was made conditional upon assessment and payment of construction cost.

Final Conclusion: The decision substantially recognized the applicant's title to survey nos. 340/2 and 340/3 and negatived respondent no. 3's claim of ownership or continued possession, while directing assessment of construction cost before any final restoration of possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee cannot acquire title to land or superstructures not included in the conveyance, and neither delay nor asserted adverse possession can defeat the true owner's title without proof of hostile, lawful, and continuous possession; section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies only where the transferor is shown to be an ostensible owner with the owner's consent.

---