# Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh & Ors. 2006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issues for Consideration

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2005
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-15
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 17 of 2024
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raviprakash-v-dalip-singh-ors-2006-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-issues-54451
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,725 of 100,844. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39725 for what follows._

4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2005

9. A perusal of the order dated 16.12.2020 would show that the trial court has carefully analyzed the
facts and circumstances of the case while awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- collectively to the
wife and son, and the application filed by husband-Sunil Kumar under Section 126 Cr.P.C. has been rightly
dismissed by delivering valid reasons vide order dated 10.5.2022. Thus, the order dated 10.5.2022 does not
call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

10. Learned counsel for the husband-opposite party no.2 had vehemently argued that once the
maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court was accepted, the similar claim under
D.V. Act could not have been allowed, much less without adjusting the amount of maintenance earlier
awarded vide order dated 16.12.2020.

11. The argument appears impressive, but is without any merit as a perusal of the order dated 2.8.2023
would show that Additional Civil Judge, Manipuri has specifically noticed the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per
month already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of the claimants by the Family Court, and
considering that amount it only awarded additional maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. Most importantly,
the order dated 2.8.2023 was accepted by husband-Sunil Kumar, who never challenged it by way of an
appeal, and it also becomes abundantly clear that with enhancement the total maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per
month in favour of the claimants stood accepted by him.

12. Of course, the appellate court vide impugned order dated 13.5.2024 has also added an amount of
Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and son, therefore, the collective amount comes to Rs.16,000/- per month,
but a perusal of the order dated 13.5.2024 by appellate court would show that the salary drawn by husbandSunil Kumar is clearly noticed by relying upon the documentary evidence. Further considering the other
source of income., the appellate court modified the order dated 2.8.2023 by raising the amount of
maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, considering the growing age of the son,
who is presently 13 years old and is pursuing his education as well as the cost of living, which is higher in the
present days, the collective maintenance awarded to the claimants i.e. Rs.16,000/- per month under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and D.V. Act is just, fair and adequate.

13. Resultantly, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned orders as the orders do not
suffer from any illegality, and the petitions are hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2005
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 17 of 2024

Raviprakash ...Appellant
Versus
Dalip Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
2006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether a plaint seeking only a decree of permanent injunction on the basis of alleged title acquired by
adverse possession, without seeking declaration of title or cancellation of a subsequent gift deed, discloses a
cause of action and is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff prima facie established the essential
ingredients of adverse possession so as to survive rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
(iii) Whether the suit was barred under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC on account of absence of cause of
action and omission to seek necessary declaratory reliefs?
(iv) Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. VII R. 11(a) & (d) - Rejection of plaint - Scope of enquiry -
Court to examine only plaint averments and documents relied upon by plaintiff - Written
statement and defence irrelevant.

HELD: While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is confined to the averments
contained in the plaint together with the documents filed by the plaintiff. The defence of the defendants or
documents relied upon by them cannot be considered. The Court is, however, required to undertake a
meaningful reading of the plaint to ascertain whether it discloses a real cause of action or whether clever
drafting has merely created an illusion of one. If the suit is manifestly vexatious, barred by law or does not
disclose a right to sue, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold. [Paras 33 to 39]

Adverse Possession - Essential ingredients - Hostile possession - Knowledge of true owner -
Animus possidendi - Burden of proof.

HELD: A person claiming ownership by adverse possession must specifically plead and establish when and
how possession commenced, the nature of possession, the identity of the true owner, that such possession
was open, continuous, hostile and uninterrupted for the statutory period, and that it was to the knowledge of
the true owner. Mere long possession does not mature into title. Animus possidendi is an indispensable
requirement and the burden lies entirely upon the person asserting adverse possession. [Paras 40 to 43]

Adverse Possession - Knowledge of true owner - Bald assertion in plaint - Insufficiency.

HELD: Although the plaintiff asserted continuous possession of the property since 01.01.1996, the plaint
nowhere disclosed how the true owner had knowledge of such allegedly hostile possession. No material facts
or documentary evidence were pleaded to establish that the owner, residing at another place, was aware of
the plaintiff's hostile claim. Mere assertion of such knowledge without supporting facts did not satisfy the
foundational requirement of adverse possession. [Paras 44 and 45]

Adverse Possession - Government records showing disputed property as residential address -
Effect.

HELD: Documents such as revolver licence, voter identity card, company records, income-tax records, tradetax registration, insurance policies, vehicle registration, export-import licence, educational records of children
and other official documents merely establish the address furnished by the applicant. Such documents neither
establish ownership nor prove hostile possession against the true owner. Their existence does not imply that
governmental authorities or the true owner acknowledged the claimant's title by adverse possession. [Para
46]

Adverse Possession - Electricity bills and municipal taxes continued in name of previous owner
- Acknowledgement of title of true owner - Effect.
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2007
HELD: The plaintiff himself pleaded that electricity bills continued to be paid in the name of the previous
owner and municipal taxes were also deposited in his name without seeking mutation or transfer of the
records. Such conduct constituted acknowledgement of the title of the recorded owner and was wholly
inconsistent with a hostile assertion of ownership. These pleadings themselves demolished the plaintiff's claim
of adverse possession. [Paras 47 and 48]

Adverse Possession - Calculation of statutory period - Incorrect pleading.

HELD: The plaintiff claimed to have entered possession on 01.01.1996 but pleaded that title matured on
31.12.2008 after expiry of twelve years. The Court noticed that even this computation was erroneous, since
twelve years from 01.01.1996 would expire on 01.01.2008. The incorrect pleading further reflected the
infirmity in the plaintiff's claim. [Para 49]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Permanent injunction - Title disputed - Necessity of declaration.
HELD: Where the plaintiff claims title by adverse possession and such title is disputed or clouded by the
defendant's title documents, a suit seeking merely permanent injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff
must seek declaration of title and, wherever necessary, consequential relief. A person claiming adverse
possession cannot obtain injunction against the true owner without first establishing his title through an
appropriate declaratory decree. [Paras 50 to 54]

Gift Deed - Subsequent transfer in favour of defendants - Failure to seek declaration or
cancellation - Maintainability of suit.

HELD: The plaintiff admitted execution of the registered gift deed dated 18.01.2019 in favour of defendant
Nos. 2 and 3 but neither sought its cancellation nor prayed for a declaration that it was void or not binding.
Since the gift deed constituted a cloud upon the plaintiff's alleged title, omission to seek appropriate
declaratory relief rendered the suit for bare injunction legally incompetent. [Paras 55 to 57]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. VII R. 11(a) & (d) - Cause of action - Bar of law.

HELD: The plaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of adverse possession and omitted to seek
indispensable reliefs of declaration of title and cancellation of the gift deed. Consequently, the plaintiff had no
enforceable cause of action and the suit was barred in law. The Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC. [Paras 60 to 62]

Civil Procedure - Appeal - Rejection of plaint - Affirmation.

HELD: The judgment rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC suffered from no legal infirmity. The
appeal was devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs while affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court. [Paras 62 to 64]

Appeal dismissed with costs. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Correspondent, R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 793 - relied on; Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) through
LRs, (2020) 16 SCC 601 - relied on; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others v. Shrimant
Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Another, (2024) 15 SCC 675 - relied
on; Uttam Chand (Dead) through LRs v. Nathu Ram (Dead) through LRs and Others, (2020) 11
SCC 263 - relied on; M.Radheshyamlal vs. V. Sandhya and Anr. (2024) 13 SCC 275; Anathula
Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy(Dead) by Lrs. and others (2008)4 SCC 594; T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy
vs. M.Mallappa & Anr. (2021) 13 SCC 135; Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Thr. LRS. vs.
Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Thr. LRS. And others (2022) 12 SCC 128.
2008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Limitation Act, 1963.

List of Keywords
Adverse possession; Rejection of plaint; Cause of action; Permanent injunction; Declaratory relief; Cloud on
title; Gift deed; Limitation; Hostile possession; Animus possidendi; True owner; Simpliciter injunction; Section
34 Specific Relief Act.

Case Arising From
Judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Ghaziabad in
Original Suit No. 876 of 2021, Ravi Prakash v. Dalip and Others.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Jyoti Agrawal and Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal.
For the Respondents: Ms. Akanksha Sharma.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the
impugned judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division)/FTC,
Ghaziabad in O.S.no. 876 of 2021 Ravi Prakash vs. Dalip and others, whereby defendants
application no. 41-C2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint
has been rejected.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff appellant filed O.S. no. 876 of 2021 with the averments that on the basis of
adverse possession he is the actual and physical owner of house no. KH - 11, area 1413.31 square
yards i.e. 1181.668 m2 situated in Block -H, Sector 18, GMP residential colony, Kavinagar,
Ghaziabad, tehsil and District Ghaziabad, the boundaries of which have been mentioned at the end
of the plaint, which is hereinafter referred to as the disputed property.

3. It was further averred that the disputed property was purchased by defendant no.1 on
20.4.1987, which comprises of 3 rooms, kitchen, 3 toilet, servant room, lobby, store, etc. which are
constructed in an area of 92.90 m2. There is also boundary wall which is 7 feet high and the main
gate is of iron, which is used for egress and ingress, which is locked. The property has been
continuously in the occupation of plaintiff from 1.1.1996, in which his family members are also
residing with him, since then, he is in the actual and physical possession of the disputed property.
Since then, he has fixed his name plate on the main gate, which is known to all residents and also
defendant no.1.

4. It was further averred that since plaintiff and his family members are residing in the
disputed property as such, the District Magistrate Ghaziabad on 26.7.1997 issued him revolver
license no. 262/97 on which he purchased the revolver of 32 bore 0619(IOF). He also established
his watch manufacturing factory in the year 1997 in the name of S.D. Watches India Ltd, in which
he is director and he has shown his address as the disputed property. The trade tax number was
obtained on the address of the disputed property by him in the year 1997, on the basis of which he
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2009
is doing his watch business. On 30.4.2002 he obtained loan from Ford Credit Kotak Mahindra Ltd
through agreement no. 41803313 for purchasing a car. On 17.2.1996 an agreement was executed
between him and HMT Ltd in which he has shown his address as the disputed property. He also
obtained a loan from Punjab National Bank ,Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad in which security bond was
registered in which he has disclosed his address as the disputed property, in which an agreement of
guarantee was executed on 18.8.1998 and further, in the year 1998, he applied for obtaining a loan
of ₹ 35 lakhs for his firm S.D Watches India Ltd from Punjab National Bank Ghaziabad, which was
sanctioned on 7.8.1998 and in this loan also he has shown his address as the disputed property.

5. It was further averred that he applied on behalf of Delta Watch Private Limited to the
Registrar of Companies, in which a show cause notice was issued under Section 75(4) of the
Companies Act on 26.3.2004, to his wife Shashikala at her address as the disputed property. In the
year 2004, he applied on behalf of his company to the Registrar of Companies, regarding which a
confirmation was received on 23.1.2004, which was sent to his wife Shashikala on her address as
the disputed property. He also submitted the annual return of his firm Delta Watches Private Ltd on
28.9.1999 disclosing his address as the disputed property. In the 1997, he also applied for the
export import of components for his firm M/S S.D.Watch India Ltd for allotting IC number in
which he also disclosed his address as the disputed property.

6. In the year 1996 he also obtained landline telephone no. 2701383 from BSNL which was
installed on his address as disputed property. He started manufacturing Delta Watches from
20.1.2004 and for obtaining the trademark he disclosed his address as the disputed property, its
receipt no. 241797 was issued on 20.1.2004. On 15.10.2005 for obtaining the trade mark of the
watch in the name of Swiz Delta he applied to the Government of India disclosing his address as
the disputed property. On 1.1.2007 the Election Commission of India issued voter card to him and
his wife Shashikala on their address as the disputed property.

7. It was further averred that the house tax of the disputed property is being paid in the name
of Major Vinod Kumar,who was the owner prior to defendant no.1. Since he and his family
members are continuously residing in the disputed property hence they are regularly depositing the
house tax of the disputed property, its receipts dated 15.3.2008, 31.3.2009, 26.3.2011 and
29.3.2012 are in his possession, which proves that his occupation of the disputed property is open,
peaceful and without any interference.

8. It was further averred that on 11.3.2005 he purchased a Honda City car no.UP-14 X- 8823
in which his address as the disputed property was shown and the car was insured on the same
address having policy number HNC/00003472. His daughter Mahima and son Shyam were born in
the disputed property on 16.10.2011 and 2.9.2019, respectively. His daughter Mahima was
studying in class V in Holy Child School, Ghaziabad, and in the school record her address is of the
disputed property. In the disputed property he, his wife and family members are continuously
residing, the possession of which is also with him and due to this reason, his wife Shashikala on
13.7.2011 executed a power-of-attorney in his favour regarding khatauni no. 70 in which their
adress is of the disputed property.
2010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. It was further averred that he is the director of his company Dayal and Sons Electronics
Private Limited in which his residential address is of the disputed property, which has also been
confirmed by the income tax department of the Government of India. He has also obtained a gas
connection on the disputed property from IGL on 28.4.2015 having connection no. BP
7000076153,from which he is continuously receiving gas, which is being used for cooking meals.
His revolver license no. 262/97 was unfortunately lost regarding which he registered a FIR on
11.7.2015 at police station, Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad showing his address as the disputed property.

10. It was further averred that in the disputed property electrical connection no. 004/006851 is
in the name of previous owner Capt. Vinod Kumar, but the payment is being made by him. Some
of the electricity bills were paid by him through cheque and in the receipts dated
16.11.2010,15.7.2009 and 5.7.2010 cheque no. 592245 drawn on SBI is mentioned. He also
purchased a Creta car no.UP-14-DF 1607 in the year 2017 on his address as the disputed property,
which was insured by policy no.HAX/S 6743753. A false FIR was registered by some anti-social
elements against him at police station Mohanlalganj, Lucknow regarding which notice under
Section 91/160 CrPC was issued by the above police station on his address as the disputed
property. He has also obtained along with his family members, medical policy no.
254003/48/2010/536 in the year 2016, which is continuing till date, regarding which an enquiry
was conducted by the Oriental Insurance Co. and on ascertaining that he is residing in the disputed
property, policy was issued.

11. It was further averred that on 26.2.2020 he deposited the house tax, water tax & sewer tax
with the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad through cheque no. 006277/26.2.2020 for ₹ 20,472/- which was
drawn on Federal Bank. He further deposited bills for the electric connection no. 8824355000 dated
1.12.2018 and 29.7.2020 through cheque no. 004342 for ₹ 4,133/- and cheque no. 006288 for ₹
50,558/-, respectively, which also proved his possession of the disputed property.

12. It was further averred that since 1.1.1996 he is in continuous possession of the disputed
property, he has shown his address of the disputed property in his business concerns, the defendant
no.1 and others are fully aware of his actual, hostile and continuous possession of the disputed
property. He is residing in the disputed property as owner for the last 25 years, which is in the
knowledge of defendant no.1, which has not been objected by defendant no.1, and he has deprived
the defendant no.1 from the use and occupation of the disputed property. The defendant no.1 was
always aware of his ownership and possession of the disputed property, but the defendant no.1
never took any steps for dispossessing him from the disputed property, neither filed any case
against him in any competent Court nor obtained any order or decree against him. No suit, appeal
and execution proceeding for his ejectment are pending in any competent Court.

13. It was further averred that since he was in continuous possession of the disputed property
from 1.1.1996 as such, the limitation for filing the suit for dispossessing him from the disputed
property has ended on 31.12.2008, and hence his possession of the disputed property has matured
into ownership, and since 31.12.2008 he is the owner in possession of the disputed property and
since then the defendant no.1 has lost his right to dispossess him, interfere in his ownership and
possession of the disputed property and has also lost his right to alienate, mortgage, etc. the
disputed property. The defendant no.1 has got no right, title and interest whatsoever, in the disputed
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2011
property and in accordance with Section 27,Article 65 and 136 of the Limitation Act, all the rights
of the defendant no.1 in the disputed property have ended.

14. It was further averred that the defendant no.1 has lost his right to dispossess him from the
disputed property since his right has become time barred. Otherwise also, the defendant no.1 was
incapable of dispossessing him but was in contact of land mafia for selling the disputed property,
who was intending to dispossess him with their assistance.

15. It was further averred that defendant no.1 was in collusion with some land mafia and
Sandeep (defendant no. 3), and for usurping the disputed property, constituted a trust in the name of
Dayal Educational Trust(defendant no. 2) and the defendant no. 3 was the chairman of the trust. It
was averred that when the plaintiff became aware that the defendant no.1 was ready to transfer the
disputed property in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 in the month of January 2019, then he made a
request to defendant no. 3 that by adverse possession from 1.1.1996 he has acquired ownership of
the disputed property on 31.12.2008, hence defendant no. 3 should not get the property transferred
in his name. It was further averred that the defendant no. 3 was well aware that the plaintiff and his
family members are in continuous possession of the disputed property since 1.1.1996 and they have
acquired ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession on 31.12.2008.

16. It was further averred that inspite of the above facts, defendant no.1 in collusion with some
antisocial elements executed the gift deed of the disputed property in favour of defendant no. 2 and
3 on 18.1.2019, which was not shown to the plaintiff. It was further averred that defendant no. 2
and 3 are also well aware of his possession and ownership of the disputed property but they have
also not taken any steps for his dispossession from the disputed property by filing any suit before
the competent Court. It was further averred that defendant no.1 was a resident of Mohalla
Patwarian Post Office Mandawar District Bijnor and the defendant no. 3 was a resident of 9/30
Sarvodaya Colony, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, who never had any concern with the disputed
property.

17. It was further averred that on 17.9.2021 the defendants no.1 and 3 along with some
antisocial elements came to the disputed property and defendant no. 3 showed him a gift deed of
the disputed property dated 18.1.2019, then the plaintiff became aware for the 1st time that the
defendant no.1 has executed an illegal gift deed of the disputed property in favour of defendant no.
2, whereas, the ownership of the plaintiff in disputed property has matured on the basis of adverse
possession on 31.12.2008. It was further averred that the defendant no.1 had no right to execute the
above gift deed in favour of defendant no. 2, which was void and illegal, which neither affects the
plaintiffs right in the disputed property nor any right, title and interest has vested in defendant no. 2
and 3 on its basis.

18. It was further averred that on 17.9.2021 the defendants made an unsuccessful attempt to
dispossess him from the disputed property but due to the intervention of some influential people,
the defendants could not succeed, but in future the defendants may again try to dispossess him and
hence if, an injunction was not passed against the defendants then they will certainly dispossess the
plaintiff from the disputed property and if they succeed in doing so, then irreparable injury will be
caused to the plaintiffs, hence, the necessity of filing the suit.
2012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. In the above backdrop, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:-

(i)By decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the
defendants, the defendants be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession, ownership,
usage and in any other manner whatsoever, and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed
property, and be also restrained from creating mortgage, obtaining loan and alienating in any
other manner.

(ii)The plaintiff be also awarded the costs of the suit against the defendants.

(iii)Any other relief which the Court deems appropriate be also granted.

Defendants application 41-C2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

20. During the pendency of the suit the defendants no.2 & 3 moved an application 41-C2
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff for
filing permanent injunction suit against true owner defendant no.1 and after executing gift deed
dated 18.1.2019 in favour of defendant no. 2, whatever cause of action has been shown in
paragraph 44 of the plaint is only fabricated and false cause of action. The plaintiff has accepted
that the defendant no.1 purchased the disputed house on 20.4.1987 from Capt. Vinod Kumar,
whose name was still recorded in the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and electric connection was also in
the name of Capt. Vinod Kumar, but he has not been arrayed as a party.

21. The plaintiff cannot claim ownership by adverse possession over residential house situated
in abadi land. Under Article 25 of the Limitation Act the possession over house must be of 20 years
for claiming ownership by adverse possession, but the plaintiff has only claimed ownership on the
basis of only 12 years possession over residential house, which cannot be claimed by the plaintiff.
The relief of permanent injunction is not available to a trespasser against true owner as such, no
cause of action existed for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff has not claimed relief of
declaration hence, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted to him. The suit is barred
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act since the relief of declaration was not claimed by the
plaintiff. With these averments, it was prayed that the plaint be rejected.

Objections of the plaintiff against the defendants application

22. The plaintiff filed his objection paper no.46-C2 in which the averments of the defendants
were denied. It was averred that no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff against Capt. Vinod
Kumar, since at the time of filing of the suit, he was not having any right title and interest in the
disputed property, since he had sold the disputed property. It was further averred that in respect of
residential house, ownership on the basis of adverse possession can be claimed. It was further
averred that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed house since 1.1.1996 whereas, the suit
was filed on 20.9.2021 after a duration of 25 years 8 months and 19 days, during this period, the
plaintiffs possession of the disputed property has remained continuous. Article 25 of the Limitation
Act is related to easementary rights, not to adverse possession. For claiming ownership on the basis
of adverse possession only 12 years open, continuous and hostile possession, which must be in the
knowledge of the owner, is required, hence the plaintiff 's suit for the relief of permanent injunction
was maintainable. The plaintiff was not a trespasser. The cause of action for filing the suit has
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2013
arisen on 17.9.2021 since the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed
property and also tried to mortgage the disputed property for obtaining loan and also tried to
alienate it. The suit was not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. With these averments
it was prayed that the defendants application be rejected.

Reasoning of the trial court

23. The trial court opined that the plaint discloses that the electricity bill and the house tax of
the disputed property was being deposited by the plaintiff in the name of Vinod Kumar, from
whom the defendant no.1 Dalip Singh has purchased the disputed property, through sale deed. It
was further opined that the plaint discloses that on 18.1.2019 the disputed property has been gifted
by defendant no.1 to defendant no. 2 and 3, which proves that the plaintiff 's possession of the
disputed property has not remained continuous and without hindrance till 18.1.2019, whereas the
suit was filed on 20.9.2021. The trial court opined that for claiming ownership on the basis of
adverse possession,12 years continuous possession was required, which was not proved from the
plaint averments, hence the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the suit. With this reasoning,
the defendants application 41-C2 was allowed and consequently, the plaint was rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, aggrieved against which, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal under
Section 96 CPC.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties

24. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that the plaintiff was in continuous
possession of the disputed property since 1.1.1996, which was proved from the plaint averments.
The plaintiff has disclosed that he has obtained the telephone connection, gas connection, revolver
license, car registration, insurance policies, medical policy, showing the address of the disputed
property. It was further submitted that the plaintiff is also director of several companies and in the
records of the Registrar of Companies, the plaintiffs address is of the disputed property. In the
income tax and trade tax the plaintiffs address of the disputed property is recorded. Learned
counsel further submitted that plaintiff 's children were also born in the disputed house, the
plaintiffs wife has also mentioned the address of the disputed property, in her documents. It was
further submitted that the voter card has also been issued on the address of the disputed property.

25. It was further submitted that the defendant no.1 was the owner of the property, who was
well aware that the plaintiff was residing in the disputed property since 1.1.1996, but he took no
steps for evicting the plaintiff from the disputed property. It was further submitted that since
1.1.1996 the possession of the plaintiff on the disputed property has remained open, hostile and
continuous against the owner defendant no.1, as such, after the expiry of 12 years on 31.12.2008,
the plaintiff has become the owner of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession.

26. It was further submitted that the defendants application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is to
be decided only on the basis of plaint averments and documents of the plaintiff, and the written
statement as well as the documents of the defendants are not to be considered at this stage. It was
further submitted that the Court can also not examine the veracity of the plaint averments and is
bound to accept them as true. It was further submitted that from the plaint averments it was prima
2014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facie proved that the plaintiff was residing in the disputed property as an owner since 1.1.1996,
who has perfected his legal ownership in the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession
on 31.12.2008, as such, the plaint could not have been rejected by the trial court. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remanded back for
deciding it on merits. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon the following
case law:-

(i) Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh and ors. 2025 INSC 1238.

(ii) Bhau Ram vs. Janak Singh and ors. (2012) 8 SCC 701.

(iii) Sunil Kumar Dublish vs. Sri Ramesh Chandra Dublish (Since Dead)

and
ors. 2026 (1) ARC 435.

27. Sri Manish Goyal learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that
only the plaint averments and the documents submitted by the plaintiff are to be considered only at
the time of deciding the defendants application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was further
submitted that the plaintiff has to prima facie prove that the true owner defendant no.1 was aware
that the plaintiff was residing in the disputed property since 1.1.1996. Learned counsel further
submitted that if this fact was not in the knowledge of defendant no.1, then the plaintiff cannot
claim adverse possession against the above defendant.

28. It was further submitted that for obtaining the revolver license, for getting the car
registered with RTO, for obtaining the insurance policy, for filing income tax return, for getting
children admitted to a school, for establishing the company, for getting registered the directorship
of the company with the Registrar of Companies, for obtaining export import licence, for getting
the firm registered with trade tax, sales tax Department, for obtaining trademark - it is not required,
that the address shown must be of the property, which is owned by the applicant. If a person is
living in a rented/leased accommodation, even then, he can obtain the above mentioned documents
and get his name entered in the official records.

29. It was further submitted that for obtaining the electricity connection in an accommodation
and for mutation in the records of the municipality, the applicant is required to prove his ownership
of the property, failing which, he can neither obtain the electricity connection nor can get his name
mutated. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has admitted that he's continuously depositing
the house tax and other taxes attached to the property and the electricity bill of the electric
connection installed in the disputed property, in the name of previous owner Capt. Vinod Kumar,
which itself proves, that the plaintiff has never made any effort to deposit the above amounts in his
name and has acknowledged Capt. Vinod Kumar, as the true owner of the disputed property,
otherwise the plaintiff would not have deposited the electricity bill and other taxes in the name of
previous owner Capt. Vinod Kumar.

30. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has nowhere mentioned how defendant
no.1 was aware that he was residing in the disputed property since 1.1.1996, no documentary
evidence regarding this fact has been submitted by the plaintiff before the court. It was further
submitted that the plaintiff should have given legal notice to the defendant no.1 that he is residing
in the disputed property since 1.1.1996 to prove his intention but no such action was taken by the
4 All. Raviprakash Vs. Dalip Singh & Ors.
2015
plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove his hostile
intention to claim ownership of the disputed property and mere possession of the disputed property,
without hostile intention, is not sufficient for claiming ownership on the basis of adverse
possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff never proved his hostile intention
against the real owner i.e. defendant no.1, hence, the plaintiff has got no cause of action for filing
the instant suit.

31. It was further submitted that the plaintiff has accepted that the defendant no.1 as owner has
executed the gift deed of the disputed property in favour of defendant no. 2 and 3 on 18.1.2019, but
no relief of cancellation of the disputed gift deed has been claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
also not claimed relief of declaration that he be declared the owner of the disputed property on the
basis of adverse possession, as such, the plaintiffs suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be rejected.

32. The following issues arise for determination in this appeal:-

(i)What are the essential ingredients of claiming ownership on the basis of adverse
possession ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff has prima facie proved from the plaint averments and documents
submitted, that he has acquired ownership of the disputed property on the basis of adverse
possession ?

Interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 CPC

33. The Apex Court in the case of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B.
Gunashekar and anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, while considering the scope and purpose of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has held as under:-

"14. Let us first examine the scope and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court in
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives (2020) 7
SCC 366, explained in detail the applicable law for deciding the application for rejection of the
plaint. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced below:

23.1 ...

23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy,
wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding
to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied
that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action
is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary
to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.

23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 1986 Supp SCC 315 this Court held that the
whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the
court, in the following words : (SCC p.324, para 12)
2016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"12. ....The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation
which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept
hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation,
the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."

23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic
one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the
plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint read in conjunction
with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

23.7. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff
places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:

"14.