RANCHI, India, Aug. 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 18:

1. Instant review petition has been filed to review the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.80 of 2010 by which judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2008 was set aside and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed.

2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of the registered deeds of gift bearing no.5561 dated 06.06.1986 and 9564 dated 26.08.1988.

3. The defendants claim title on the basis of Sale Deed Nos.1374 and 1375 dated 25.08.1982. Learned trial Court decreed the suit which was reversed in first appeal against which the second appeal was preferred before this Court, which was allowed.

4. Aggrieved by the Judgment in second appeal, the respondents/appellants/ defendants has preferred instant review petition inter alia on the ground that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. It is contended that there was definite pleading in the written statement with regard to plea of adverse possession taken by the defendant and this was acknowledged in the judgment as well. However, in para 21, page 9, it has been stated in the judgment that defendants had failed to plead and prove the basic ingredient of adverse possession to entitle them to title of the suit property by adverse possession. A specific reference is made in para 3 of the written statement where plea of adverse possession has been taken.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties that there was general pleading on adverse possession at one place i.e. para no.3, but specific pleading as required by law, was not pleaded with details. Further, no issue was framed on adverse possession by the trial Court.

6. It is also argued that claim of the plaintiffs was on the basis of registered gift of deeds executed by Smt. Adhikari Devi, who was Class I heir of the Schedule under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereas vendor of the review petitioners/defendants was not Class I heir and had no right to transfer the property. It is argued that under the garb of a review application, Petitioner is challenging the judgment on merit.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides it is evident that petitioner seeks review by asserting his possessory title over the land. Initially the claim was made of proprietary title, on a sale deed executed by a person having no right title over the property in question. In order to claim adverse possession, one need to first admit the title of the owner of the property then claim can be set up on the basis of adverse possession. Here the petitioner asserted both possessory title and proprietary title. Law is settled that in order to succeed in a claim of title based on adverse possession, a party is required to plead and prove fundamental ingredients as laid down by the Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 :

(a) on what date he came into possession,

(b) what was the nature of his possession,

(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,

(d) how long his possession has continued, and

(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfHXEjdvCeIYNtJH5EKV4BZWb7cJnjAMZmq3gaUdEbLaT&caseno=C.Rev./85/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010409472022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.