Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal; Rejects Claim of Adverse Possession Over Evacuee Property

Case Name: Maktulo (Deceased) through LRs and Others vs. Ram Parkash (Deceased) through LRs and Another
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: RSA-1279-1991
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding the findings of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs had no legal basis to claim ownership of the suit land by adverse possession. The Court held that the land was evacuee property vested in the Custodian under Section 8 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and therefore, possession of any occupant was deemed on behalf of the Custodian and co-owners. The Court reiterated that for a claim of adverse possession against co-owners, strict proof of ouster is mandatory, and mere long possession cannot establish adverse title.

Summary: The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership with respect to 69 Kanals 17 Marlas of land, claiming possession since 1941-42 and asserting title through adverse possession. They further challenged a 1984 partition order passed by the revenue authorities. The defendants contended that the property formed part of Shamlat Deh land and that 1/3rd share had been lawfully allotted to them after migration of Muslim proprietors, based on an order of the Custodian dated 06.04.1953. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs’ possession was continuous, open and hostile. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the Custodian remained co-owner until partition proceedings concluded and that the plaintiffs’ possession could not be treated as adverse in law.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that their long and uninterrupted possession and assertion of adverse title since filing of a written statement in 1964 satisfied the ingredients of adverse possession. The respondents argued that since the Custodian was co-owner under Section 8(4) of the 1950 Act, possession of the plaintiffs was deemed permissive and not hostile, and no evidence existed showing ouster of the Custodian or co-sharers.

Decision: The High Court affirmed the findings of the First Appellate Court, holding that possession of evacuee property vests in the Custodian and any person occupying it holds it on behalf of the Custodian. The Court relied on the long-standing principle that possession of one co-owner is possession of all unless clear and hostile ouster is proved. Since the plaintiffs acknowledged the Custodian’s status and later abandoned their challenge against the Custodian in amended pleadings, their claim of adverse possession failed. Finding no perversity or legal infirmity and no substantial question of law arising under Section 100 CPC, the appeal was dismissed.