News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 84 | 2026:CGHC:587
Feb. 03, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a second appeal arising out of a nearly five-decade-old land dispute, holding that possession based on an unproven agreement to sell cannot mature into ownership and that permissive possession does not amount to adverse possession.
The judgment was delivered on February 3, 2026, by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in Second Appeal No. 406 of 2005, affirming the decision of the first appellate court which had overturned a trial court decree granting ownership to the plaintiff.
The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 0.70 acre in Village Ramhepur, District Kabirdham. The original plaintiff, Lala Prasad, claimed that in August 1977 he entered into an agreement to purchase the land from Yusuf, the father of the first defendant, and was placed in possession after paying part consideration. According to the plaintiff, the balance amount was paid years later, but the sale deed was never executed. After Yusuf’s death, his legal heirs also allegedly failed to complete the transaction.
On this basis, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement or, alternatively, a declaration of ownership on the ground of long and uninterrupted possession. The trial court accepted this version and decreed the suit, directing execution of a sale deed and also declaring the plaintiff owner by adverse possession.
However, the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the alleged agreement to sell was not proved in accordance with law and that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The appellate court further held that possession, if any, was permissive in nature and could not be treated as hostile or adverse. It allowed the counterclaim filed by the defendant and ordered delivery of possession.
Challenging this reversal, the legal heirs of the plaintiff approached the High Court in second appeal, raising substantial questions of law relating to the nature of possession, limitation, and court fee deficiency in the defendant’s appeal.
The High Court rejected all contentions. It held that once the agreement to sell itself was disbelieved, the plea of possession under part performance automatically failed. The Court reiterated that permissive possession cannot ripen into adverse possession unless there is a clear, hostile assertion of title to the knowledge of the true owner, which was absent in this case.
On the issue of limitation, the Court upheld the appellate court’s view that the defendant’s counterclaim for possession was maintainable and not time-barred, as the cause of action effectively arose only after the plaintiff’s claim of title was rejected.
The Court also addressed the objection regarding deficit court fee and held that such deficiency is a curable defect. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it reaffirmed that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and appellate courts have the same procedural powers as trial courts. The defendant was permitted to make good the deficit court fee before execution of the decree.
Finding no perversity, misreading of evidence, or substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the order directing delivery of possession to the defendant, bringing the long-running dispute to a close.
Case Reference : SA No. 406 of 2005, Lala Prasad and Others v. Safi Mohammed and Others; for the appellants: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate; no appearance for respondent No. 1 despite service of SPC pursuant to the order dated 15 December 2025; for the respondent–State: Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.
