Kishundeo Rout & Ors. (Petitioner) v. Govind Rao & Ors.(Respondent)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.22070/2025 (@DIARY NO.30361)

(J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ)

This case started when the Plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & others) went to court in 1999. They wanted the court to declare that a sale deed dated 03.02.1997 by which one Sudama Devi sold property to the Defendants (Govind Rao & others) was fake and invalid. They also asked the court to confirm they were in possession, or to give them back the property if the defendants had taken it, and to stop the defendants from interfering. The defendants said the sale deed was genuine, and they were the rightful owners and in possession.

The plaintiffs alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and absence of consideration in the sale. The defendants asserted their ownership and possession under the registered sale deed.

The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation, and the Plaintiffs could not establish that the defendants had not given possession after execution of the sale deed. The suit was not maintainable and lacked a cause of action.

First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision only for “Schedule B” property. It said that no suit or counterclaim was filed by the defendants to recover possession. Applying Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the court held the defendants’ right to reclaim possession extinguished after 12 years, thereby perfecting the plaintiffs’ title by adverse possession as of 2012. The court declared the sale deed valid but ruled that the plaintiffs’ adverse possession entitled them to retain Schedule B property.

The defendants appealed in the High Court. The High Court held that no foundational pleading of adverse possession existed in the plaint, and adverse possession must be perfected before the suit is filed, not during its pendency. The plaintiffs’ suit was based on invalidating the sale deed, not on adverse possession. Framing an issue of adverse possession at the appellate stage was beyond the pleadings and legally impermissible. It restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.

The case went before the Supreme Court, and the petitioners argued that the appellate court had rightly recognized their perfected possession. The Court examined long-standing precedent on when a plea of adverse possession can be raised. The court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning and held that unless the plea of adverse possession is specifically pleaded, put in issue, and proved with cogent evidence, it cannot be granted, especially not for the first time on appeal. The court said that you cannot change the basis of your case midway.

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.