Facts of the Case
- “A” and “B” purchased adjacent plots bearing Plot Nos. 250/A and 250/B, each measuring 500 square yards from a housing society in Hyderabad.
- “A” is a Military Officer who was away from Hyderabad for a long time due to official transfer.
- In the meantime, “B” constructed a double-storied building by mistake on Plot No. 250/A, which actually belongs to “A”, instead of constructing it on his own Plot No. 250/B.
- Upon retirement, “A” returned to Hyderabad with the intention of constructing his own house but discovered that “B” had already occupied his plot with a permanent structure.
- “A” now seeks legal recourse to recover possession of his property from “B”.
Issues in the Case
- Whether “A” is entitled to recover possession of Plot No. 250/A from “B” under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
- Whether the construction made by “B” on “A’s” plot gives rise to any equitable or legal rights in favor of “B”.
- What remedies are available to “A” under the law, and what suit should he institute?
- Whether the act of “B” amounts to trespass or an encroachment of immovable property.
Principles Associated with It
- Under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, a person entitled to possession of immovable property can recover it through a suit for possession.
- Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act protects possession even without title, but does not apply to a trespasser who has constructed on another’s property.
- Doctrine of unjust enrichment: “B” cannot claim benefit for wrongful occupation or construction on another’s land.
- Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act allows a person to seek a declaration of ownership.
- The proper suit would be one for possession, declaration, and mandatory injunction under Order VII Rule 1 CPC.
- Courts have held in cases like K.K. Verma v. Union of India and Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao that a party in unlawful possession has no right to remain on the property despite any financial or structural investment.
Judgment
- “A” can institute a suit for possession, declaration of title, and mandatory injunction under CPC before the appropriate civil court.
- The court can direct “B” to vacate and hand over possession of Plot No. 250/A to “A”.
- “B” may seek compensation or the cost of the structure if the court finds the mistake was bonafide, but this does not entitle him to retain possession.
- Courts generally do not protect possession that originated from a wrongful or mistaken encroachment.
- Equity does not support someone who builds on land without verifying ownership, especially when clear title exists.
