Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal is sequel to a suit for possession instituted by Shyam Sunder Seth predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in the appeal herein. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) The property in dispute was an evacuee property. Late Shyam Sunder Seth purchased the property in an auction-sale held on November 20, 1962. He failed to pay the full auction price in accordance with the terms of the sale and as such the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the sale by his order dated May 27, 1977. Shyam Sunder Seth challenged the order of cancellation by way of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by his judgment dated December 6, 1979 and directed as under:- "The petitioner, as in apparent from the record has made payments of more than Rs. 56,000/-. He is ready and willing to pay the remainder in cash. For the reasons stated above, the orders dated 22-7-75, 27-5-77 and 4-11-77 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Central Government are quashed. However, as the conduct of the petitioner with regard to making payments has been very far from exemplary, he is not entitled to costs."
(3.) Thereafter, Shyam Sunder Seth paid the remaining sale-price in respect of the suit property to the competent authority. The said payment was made in the year 1980. Thereafter a sale certificate was issued to Shyam Sunder Seth on March 31, 1981. The sale certificate confirmed the title of Shyam Sunder Seth to the suit property with effect from January 16, 1964. The present suit for possession was filed by Shyam Sunder Seth on February 1, 1984. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants- appellants were in actual physical possession of the property continuously for more than 12 years and, as such, they had become the owners of the property by adverse possession. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court rejected all the contentions raised by the defendants-appellants and decreed the suit. Before the High Court, the appellants reiterated the contentions raised before the trial court but primarily concentrated on the points that the appellants had perfected their title to the property by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court upheld the findings of the trial court on both the issues. The High Court rejected the first contention on the following reasoning:- "These documents show that the appellants were not the trespassers but the appellants came into possession of the suit property as a licensee or sub-tenants through the lawful occupants under the Custodian. Thus, the possession of the appellants was permissive. It is settled law that the appellants whose possession was permissive cannot claim title on the basis of adverse possession unless they show specific overt act and assertion on their part that they disclaimed the title of the true owner. They must allege and prove that as to when and under what circumstances, their possession became adverse. This requires a definite overt act and assertion on the part of the appellants. This has neither been pleaded nor proved by the appellants. We are of the view that the appellants have not made out a case of adverse possession. We find that there is nothing on record to show any hostility on the part of the appellants against the title of the true owner. Accordingly, we hold that the possession of the appellants in respect of the property in suit was not adverse till the sale certificate Ext. PW-1/1 dated March 31,1981 was issued in favour of the respondent." ;