Land lawsDelhi land reforms actSupreme Court of India

Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati v Prem Prakash

(1995) 4 SCC 496; AIR 1995 SC 1789; 1995 INSC 36119951 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Raghunath died in 1952. His holding in Delhi was recorded in the names of Vidya Devi (widow of his predeceased son), Dev Raj and Prem Prakash. In 1958 all three were declared co-bhumidhars under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
Issue
Can a co-bhumidhar defend a partition suit by pleading title by adverse possession against another co-bhumidhar?
Held
No. The Act fixes no limitation for a partition suit between co-bhumidhars, so title by adverse possession for 12 years cannot arise between them.
Principle
Under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, where no limitation applies to a co-bhumidhar's partition suit, another co-bhumidhar cannot set up title by adverse possession; such a plea is clearly untenable and need not be referred to the civil court.
Cite this

Facts

  • Raghunath died in 1952. His holding in Delhi was recorded in the names of Vidya Devi (widow of his predeceased son), Dev Raj and Prem Prakash.
  • In 1958 all three were declared co-bhumidhars under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
  • Vidya Devi sued for partition under S.55(1). Prem Prakash claimed the whole holding by adverse possession and asked for the title question to go to a civil court under S.186.

Issue

  1. Can a co-bhumidhar defend a partition suit by pleading title by adverse possession against another co-bhumidhar?

Held

  • No. The Act fixes no limitation for a partition suit between co-bhumidhars, so title by adverse possession for 12 years cannot arise between them.
  • The plea was clearly untenable under the Explanation to S.186(1), so no reference to the civil court was needed.
  • Saghir Ahmad J agreed in the result, holding that the plea had not been pleaded with its necessary ingredients (hostile, open, continuous possession and ouster).
  • The appeal was allowed.

Cite this

Citation

Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati v Prem Prakash (1995) 4 SCC 496; AIR 1995 SC 1789; 1995 INSC 361

Reported: Indian Kanoon doc 1867043; SC judgment PDF (JUDIS 10744). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.