loader image

Bombay High Court Modifies 1994 Decree; Limits Adverse Possession to Area Found in Actual Possession

Bombay High Court Modifies 1994 Decree; Limits Adverse Possession to Area Found in Actual Possession

M/s Shri Tirthankar Co. v. Adyaprasad Hingoo Mishra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors., [Decided on February 6, 2026]

Bombay High Court adverse possession limits

The Bombay High Court partly allowed a first appeal that had been pending since 1994 and modified the trial court’s decree on adverse possession. The Court limited the decree to the area actually in the defendants’ possession, as shown in the Court Receiver’s report and maintained under a long-standing status quo.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated March 4, 1994, passed by the Bombay City Civil Court by which the plaintiff’s suit for possession of 688.50 sq. ft. of land from CTS No. 185, village Pahadi, Goregaon was dismissed, and the defendants were declared owners by adverse possession of a much larger area of 170 sq. yards (142.60 sq. metres). Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, by an order dated September 7, 1995, the High Court appointed the Court Receiver to measure the area in possession of the defendants. The Architect’s report revealed that the defendants had only 38 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.). Based on this report, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, which order remained in force and was strictly followed for nearly 30 years.

At the final hearing, Justice Kamal Khata noted that, given the long-standing status quo, the appellant did not wish to press the appeal on merits and had no objection to the defendants being declared owners by adverse possession only to the limited extent of 38 sq. metres, as recorded in the Court Receiver’s report. The appellant sought only a modification of the trial court decree to that limited extent.

Accordingly, the High Court modified the judgment and decree dated March 4, 1994, declaring that the defendants had acquired ownership by adverse possession only in respect of 38 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.), as shown in the Architect’s plan annexed to the report dated October 13, 1995. The suit otherwise stood dismissed, and the connected civil application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.


Appearances:

For the Appellant – Mr. Drupad Patil, with Mr. Rohan Karande and Mr. Sandeep Wankhede.

For the Respondents – None.

PDF Icon

M/s Shri Tirthankar Co. v. Adyaprasad Hingoo Mishra (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.

Preview PDF