The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed strong protection for debutter property vested in a deity. The Court said a plea of adverse possession can succeed only when the person in possession clearly asserts a hostile title against the deity, the true owner.
Justice Sugato Majumdar dismissed a second appeal in a long property dispute. He held that a permissive user of a tank dedicated to a deity cannot become an owner merely by staying in possession for years. The defendants, the Court noted, failed to show any clear act that denied the deity’s title.
Dispute Over Tank Dedicated To Deity
The dispute involved a tank measuring about 20 decimals in Plot No. 235. Gnandra Nath Dey bought the property. He later dedicated it to the plaintiff deity through a registered arpannama.
The plaintiffs acted as shebaits. They said Giribala used the tank only with permission. After her death, her children continued the use and occupation. The plaintiffs claimed the occupants later refused to restore possession and denied the deity’s ownership. They then filed a suit seeking recovery of khas possession.
The defendants disputed this version. They claimed Giribala had independent rights over the tank. They also argued that their long, open, and continuous possession had matured into ownership by adverse possession.
Courts’ Findings
The Trial Court accepted the defendants’ case and dismissed the suit.
The First Appellate Court reversed the decision. It held that the occupation remained permissive. It also held that time alone cannot create adverse title.
The High Court agreed with the appellate court. It reviewed the evidence and found gaps in the defendants’ case.
Why The Adverse Possession Plea Failed
The High Court noted that earlier suits had been filed by or on behalf of the deity to recover possession. That record weakened the claim of uninterrupted hostile possession.
The Court also relied on documents that described Giribala’s occupation as permissive. It found another major issue too. The defendants did not produce pleadings from earlier litigations that could support their plea of adverse possession.
Hostility Must Be Against The True Owner
The Court stressed that adverse possession requires hostility against the true owner. Here, even on the defendants’ own version, their hostility ran against Gnandra Nath Dey. It did not run against the deity, in whom the property stood vested.
So, the Court held, their possession could not qualify as adverse to the deity.
Justice Majumdar also clarified a broader principle. A gratuitous or permissive occupier cannot quietly turn permissive possession into ownership. The person must show clear and unequivocal acts that deny the real owner’s title.
Appeal Dismissed; Time Granted To Vacate
The High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the decree for recovery of possession. It directed the defendants to vacate the suit tank within 60 days. If they fail, the plaintiffs may start execution proceedings and seek mesne profits.
