Court upholds plaintiffs' title over land claimed by religious institution through adverse possession

This case arose from a title dispute over 4 Kanals 18 Marlas of agricultural land in Muktsar, Punjab. The plaintiffs claimed ownership through a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1965, while the defendants, representing Dera Bhai Mastan Singh, claimed the property had been irrevocably dedicated for religious purposes (Dharam-Arth) well before that sale, and that successive Mahants had possessed it continuously, thereby perfecting title by adverse possession. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, relying primarily on revenue entries describing possession as 'gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth' and concluding that dedication and adverse possession had been established. The High Court reversed these concurrent findings, holding that the revenue entries were insufficient to prove a completed dedication or adverse possession, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment. It held that revenue records are evidence of possession only and cannot by themselves establish title or dedication. The Court further held that the two defences of dedication and adverse possession were internally inconsistent, since adverse possession assumes title initially vested in another party. On adverse possession specifically, the Court found that the appellants had never pleaded or proved the date from which their possession became hostile to the true owners, nor demonstrated any overt act of repudiation. The Court clarified that long, uninterrupted possession without hostile animus cannot constitute adverse possession. The High Court's interference under Section 100 of the CPC was held proper since the lower courts had misapplied settled legal principles rather than merely recording different factual findings. However, the Court also noted that dismissal of the appellants' claim did not automatically validate the respondents' title to the entire property, as the sale deed covered only the vendors' share.

The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 183-A of 1981 claiming title and possession over 4 Kanals 18 Marlas of land in Muktsar, Punjab, relying on a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1965 executed by Gajjan Singh and Baggu Singh. The defendants, representing Dera Bhai Mastan Singh, claimed the property had been dedicated for religious purposes (Dharam-Arth) before the sale, with possession held by successive Mahants, and that the Dera had perfected title by adverse possession. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed those findings in 2011 and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment dated 22 March 2011. It held that the appellants failed to establish either a valid dedication of the suit property to Dera Bhai Mastan Singh or title by adverse possession, as no hostile animus or date of commencement of hostile possession was pleaded or proved. The Court further clarified that the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 100 of the CPC since the lower courts had misapplied settled legal principles, not merely reached a different factual conclusion.

This judgment reaffirms that a religious institution cannot claim ownership of private land merely by showing long possession or revenue entries describing religious use, without proving clear hostile intent against the true owner. It also clarifies that a party cannot simultaneously rely on both dedication and adverse possession as these are legally contradictory claims. Ordinary landowners can take comfort that their title through a registered sale deed cannot be defeated by vague claims of religious dedication unsupported by clear evidence.