ARSAD SK AND ANR. v. BANI PROSANNA KUNDU AND ORS. INSC 342

NAME OF THE CASE Arsad SK and anr. v. Bani Prosanna Kundu and ors. INSC 342

FACTS The respondents reqested the court for a declaration of title in relation to the suit land being consisting of 27 decimals of land situate and being within the R.S. Plot No. 95/425 at Malda, West Bengal and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in any which way with the use of the said land. Two already said they own it through purchase deeds and gift deeds while other said it was through adverse possession. The trial court in particular disregarded the suit to consolidate the plaintiffs’ title and possession. The first appellate court even endorsed the decision to dismiss the matter. But the Calcutta High Court has set aside the above two decisions in favour of the plaintiffs because of letters of deeds, as the court considered this boundary description important than the mentioned area. The appellants (defendants) appealed to the Supreme Court of this land.

ISSUE What their Lordships were asked to determine was whether in the present case the boundary description in a conveyance deed works an ouster of the area mentioned; and whether the plaintiffs can take advantage of the provisions of adverse possession of land not conveyed yet but which had the sometime of the plaintiffs marked as lot.

HOLDING No, because of this reason that plaintiffs could not prove the ownership by proving the purchase, gift, or adverse possession and bare statement of the boundary was not sufficient.

RATIONALE The Supreme Court pointed out that, with respect to the properties, the claimant must prove that he has a right to do so for the strength of his case and not for the weakness of the other party. The Court noted that the gap between the boundary ad area must be examined with reference to evidence. The plaintiffs have not established continuity and totality of possession which are elements in law of adverse possession. Thus, the trial court’s concurrent findings together with the appellate court’s ruling have been revived hence disregarding the High Court’s reliance on the boundary description.