LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Question of law as to is the trial court beyond its jurisdiction to inspect the possession of property

Nida Khatri ,
  21 September 2020       Share Bookmark

Court :

Brief :
The issue of possession is decided only on the basis of evidence.
Citation :
Petitioner: Ashok Parwat Respondent: Sudarshan Citation:2016 Vol 4 MPLJ 20


S.R. Waghmare


Whether the property in question belongs to the alleged adopted son of the respondent?


  • Petition was finally heard at the court due to the request of both the parties.
  • Application is under Order 39, rule 7 of the CPC.
  • The plaintiff, who is respondent 1, has filed a complaint against the respondent no 2 and the state claiming his half share in the property in dispute.
  • As the respondent lady stated that she had sold the land in the name of the petitioner, he was impleaded as the defendant no 4 in the case.

Appellant's contentions:

  • The plaintiff claims he was adopted by the husband of the respondent and is asking for his share in the property.
  • The plaintiff prayed for the inspection of the property to find out who is in possession.
  • Trial court has wrongly considered report about the possession of the property and is beyond its jurisdiction under Order 39, rule 7 of CPC.

Respondent's contentions:

  • Respondent has denied that her husband had adopted the plaintiff, and stated that she is the sole heir of her husband’s property.
  • She stated that she has already sold the land to the present petitioner of the case.
  • The defendant no 4 stated that he has brought the property from the lady and is in possession of the property.
  • He pleaded that his name was mutated in the records.
  • Trial court has not committed any illegality because when there is a dispute in matter of possession, then appointing a commission to get a report is the only way.
  • In Haryana WAQF Board Vs Shanti Sarup, it was held that when there is controversy in possession, a legal commission is appointed & in Durga Prasad Vs Parveen Foujdar, it was stated the same in the case of encroachment.

Final judgement:

  • The issue of possession is decided only on the basis of evidence.
  • The purpose of Order 39, rule 7 is not to collect the evidence which can be collected in normal proceedings of the court.
  • The Tehsildar in his report stated that the petitioner had erected the pillars in the property and the plaintiff did not object to it.
  • Burden lies on plaintiff to establish by way of evidence.
  • On the basis of this evidence found, possession of the petitioner is found and he has a registered sale deed. Hence, his petition is allowed.

Enroll the Course on CPC by Mr. S.C Virmani:
Click Here

"Loved reading this piece by Nida Khatri?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Published in Constitutional Law
Views : 196


LCI Learning Hindu Laws

Latest Judgments

More »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query