Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) vs. Suresh Tukaram Nerkar 2025 INSC 1092 -Civil Suit- Possession

Case Details

• Case Name: Kisan Vithoba Aakhade (D) Through LRs. and Others vs. Suresh Tukaram Nerkar
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1092
• Coram: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. and K. Vinod Chandran, J.
• Judgment Date: September 9, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

• No specific external caselaws or Supreme Court citations are directly referenced in the judgment text provided.

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: Discussed regarding the discretion in granting declaratory relief.
• Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Mentioned in relation to the production of documents in appeal.

1. What was the main issue before the Supreme Court in this case?

The main issue was whether the plaintiff (respondent) had valid title and possession over the disputed property, and whether the High Court was correct in overturning the findings of the trial and first appellate courts.

2. What were the facts of the case?

The plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and possession, and an injunction against interference with an open space adjacent to his residential building. The defendants claimed part of the land was in their possession and used for dumping waste and manure.

3. Why did the trial court and first appellate court reject the plaintiff’s suit?

They found discrepancies in the revenue records and concluded the plaintiff could not establish title or possession over the entire property, especially the open plot (‘PCDF’). The first appellate court also held that, since there was no claim for recovery of possession, the suit should be dismissed under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. What did the High Court decide in the second appeal?

The High Court found the trial and appellate courts’ findings to be perverse. It held that the sale deed covered the entire property, and the presence of manure and waste did not prove possession by the defendants. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s title and possession.

5. How did the Supreme Court address the issue of possession and title?

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, stating:

• The sale deed and corrected revenue records established the plaintiff’s title.
• The defendants’ claim of common use and oral partition was unsupported by evidence.
• The presence of waste/manure did not amount to legal possession.

6. What was the outcome of the appeal?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff.

7. Which statutes were discussed?

• Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: Regarding declaratory relief.
• Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: On production of documents in appeal.