Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Decree in Favour of True Owner; Holds Permissive Possession Cannot Ripen Into Adverse Possession

Case Name: Ishwar (Minor) v. Sita Ram (Deceased) through LRs

Date of Decision: 21 January 2026

Citation: RSA-773-1992

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court, holding that permissive possession cannot, by mere passage of time, transform into adverse possession unless the occupant clearly pleads and proves hostile, open, and exclusive possession to the knowledge of the true owner. The Court held that the First Appellate Court committed a grave error in treating dismissal of revenue proceedings as the starting point of hostile possession and in wrongly upholding the plea of adverse possession.

Summary: The appellant, a minor represented through his father Parkash, instituted a suit for possession of agricultural land, asserting ownership on the basis that the land had been permissively entrusted to his uncle, Sita Ram, for cultivation. It was pleaded that after the land was transferred in favour of the appellant, the defendant refused to hand over possession, necessitating the filing of the suit.

The defendant contested the suit claiming that he had perfected title by adverse possession since 1963, relying inter alia on revenue entries and dismissal of an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari filed by the plaintiff’s father. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the defendant failed to establish adverse possession. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the defendant’s possession had become hostile from Kharif 1963.

In second appeal, the High Court examined the scope of adverse possession and the evidentiary material on record. The Court observed that once permissive possession is admitted, the burden lies heavily on the defendant to establish when and how such possession became hostile. The Court held that proceedings for correction of Khasra Girdawari relate only to possession entries and do not determine title or convert permissive possession into hostile possession.

The Court further noted that the alleged admission of the plaintiff’s father recorded in the revenue order was never proved in accordance with law and was in fact denied by him in evidence. The testimony of the defendant himself failed to disclose any clear assertion of hostile title or intention to exclude the true owner. Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya, the Court reiterated that adverse possession must be strictly pleaded and proved, and no equity lies in favour of a person asserting such a claim.

Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff were restored.