Adverse Possession of Property - Supreme Court’s Ruling

 

Property disputes happen when people argue about claims of ownership and possession. Adverse possession is a legal idea often brought up in these disagreements. It means someone says they own the property because they've been using it for a long time, even if they didn't originally own it.

Once more, the Supreme Court clarifies how adverse possession works and how it helps settle these arguments.

The case revolves around a property dispute in Chennai, originally owned by Sungani Bai, who passed away in 1947. In 1945, Sungani Bai divided the property among three individuals using a registered settlement deed as she had no legal heirs. Subsequently, Radheshyamlal, the plaintiff in this case also the legal heir of one of the individuals who received a 1/3rd share of the property from the settlement deed, claims to have been in continuous possession of the property since 1950. Radheshyamlal filed a lawsuit seeking ownership declaration through adverse possession against both the remaining property sharers and the purchasers who acquired the property from other sharers.

In the recent judgment by the Supreme Court, M. Radheshyamlal Vs. V. Sandhya and Anr. Etc.(Civil Appeal Nos. 4322 - 4324 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19059-19061 of 2014), the settled position of law regarding adverse possession of the property was reiterated. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show:

1. on what date he came into possession,
2. what was the nature of his possession i.e. that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner,
3. whether the fact of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;
4. how long his possession has continued, and
5. his possession was "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous.

It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma [(1996) 8 SCC 128.]

In the case of Radheshyamlal, he failed to establish crucial elements necessary for a successful claim of adverse possession before the Court. The key findings of the Court are:

• The plaintiff's pleadings lacked the essential details required to substantiate a claim of adverse possession. There was no mention of hostile possession against the true owner or evidence of continuous possession before 1950.
• The plaintiff's own statements, including a complaint filed before the suit, contradicted the claim of uninterrupted possession since 1950. Inconsistencies in the plaintiff's assertions undermined the credibility of their claim.
• The court emphasized the importance of proving possession adverse to the true owner, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate convincingly. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of maintaining the property or paying taxes, further weakening their case.

Ultimately, on March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeals and upheld the decree for possession in favour of the defendants.

What Blank Cheques Teach Us About Law

 

I once read that "Every cheque tells a story of trust, accountability, and financial integrity." So, when I stumbled upon the case of K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman SLP(Crl) 3377 of 2019 (Supreme Court), it was intriguing to see how legal experts can dispute even the smallest details to support their clients. Surprisingly, the matter of the dispute in front of the Supreme Court was not on cheque bouncing; instead, the dispute centred around the age of the ink used for the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque.

Let's explore how our highest court navigates through such intricacies in cheque disputes.

As the case unfolded, the courts emphasized a key legal presumption outlined in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. According to this provision, when an individual signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee (receiver of a cheque), it is "presumed" that he is responsible for honouring the payment unless he provides evidence to prove otherwise. This legal stance delineates accountability in financial transactions.

The onus to rebut this presumption lies on the accused who signed the cheque as was decided by the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197. This means that even if the cheque is post-dated, the signer cannot escape the penal consequences under Section 138 of the Act. Furthermore, if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily handed to a payee for a specific payment, the payee has the authority to complete the cheque's details and this will not invalidate the cheque. However, the accused must demonstrate that the cheque was not intended to discharge a debt or liability. Essentially, any blank cheque leaf, when voluntarily signed and handed over for payment, invokes the presumption under Section 139, unless substantial evidence suggests that the cheque wasn't intended to settle a debt or liability.

In the present case, there was a dispute over the ink used on the cheque. However, the courts highlighted that minor details like the age of the ink don't invalidate the cheque if the signature is genuine. This reaffirmed the importance of focusing on substantive evidence rather than trivialities.

So, what's the bottom line? In cheque disputes, the law leans towards presumption. If someone signs a cheque, they're presumed responsible for it unless proven otherwise.

Recording Phone Conversations: Legal Considerations

In a recent case, I found a compelling example of how the law protects our privacy rights, especially in the digital landscape. The laws surrounding call recording and privacy rights are complex, and the emergence of deep fakes adds another layer of concern. Deep fakes, which involve the manipulation of audio or video content to make it appear authentic, pose a serious threat to privacy, security, and trust. Yet, as the laws concerning deep fakes develop, we'll look into whether phone calls recorded by people can be used as proof in court.

The case involved a husband recording his wife's conversations without her knowledge, leading to a significant legal showdown over privacy violations. The petitioner-wife challenged an order passed by the Family Court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) along with the certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’), which allowed the husband to use recorded conversations as evidence. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court, represented by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, intervened, recognizing the gravity of the situation.

The court's verdict, rooted in principles of privacy and constitutional rights, emphasized that the husband's actions clearly infringed on the wife's right to privacy, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Drawing upon legal precedents such as People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Anurima v. Sunil Mehta, the court unequivocally stated that privacy is an indispensable facet of our right to life and liberty. Therefore, any secret recording of personal conversations without consent violates this fundamental right.

The court's decision to set aside the Family Court's order is a powerful affirmation of individual privacy rights in the digital age. Furthermore, in India, the legality of call recordings is governed by Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, which imposes penalties for intercepting telephone lines, emphasizing the importance of privacy rights. It underscores the importance of consent and transparency in personal communications, highlighting the need for stringent safeguards against unauthorized intrusion.

In India, people are allowed to record their own phone calls without asking for permission. But if someone's privacy is violated, there could be serious legal consequences. These recorded calls are considered as electronic evidence and can be used in court under certain conditions. However, just because they can be used doesn't mean they're always okay legally, especially if they were recorded without the other person knowing. When these recordings are brought into court, their value as evidence is carefully examined. Things like whether the conversation is relevant, if you can clearly hear who's talking, and if the recording has not been tampered with are all important. Plus, if someone admits something during a call, it might not hold as much weight in court depending on how it was said.

Overall, while recording calls can help keep evidence, it's crucial to follow the rules and respect people's privacy.

Although the judiciary remains committed to upholding constitutional values and protecting individual liberties, as evidenced in the case of Aasha Lata Soni v. Durgesh Soni, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 3959, order dated 5 October 2023, it's clear that our lawmakers must update our laws to ensure better protection of privacy rights in the modern digital age.