February 03, 2026 – The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a second appeal in a land dispute that had continued for nearly five decades, holding that mere possession of land based on an unproved agreement to sell does not create ownership rights. The Court also clarified that permissive possession can never become adverse possession.
The judgment was delivered on February 3, 2026, by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in Second Appeal No. 406 of 2005. The Court upheld the decision of the first appellate court, which had earlier set aside a trial court decree in favour of the plaintiff.
The case related to 0.70 acre of agricultural land situated at Village Ramhepur in Kabirdham district. The original plaintiff, Lala Prasad, claimed that in August 1977 he had agreed to purchase the land from Yusuf, the father of the first defendant. He alleged that after paying part of the sale consideration, he was put in possession of the land. Although he claimed that the remaining amount was paid later, no registered sale deed was ever executed. After Yusuf’s death, his legal heirs also did not complete the sale.
Based on these claims, the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the agreement. In the alternative, he sought a declaration of ownership on the ground that he had been in long and continuous possession of the land. The trial court accepted his case and passed a decree directing execution of the sale deed. It also declared him owner by adverse possession.
The first appellate court, however, reversed the trial court’s decision. It held that the alleged agreement to sell was not proved in accordance with law and that the plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court further found that the plaintiff’s possession, if any, was only permissive and not hostile, and therefore could not amount to adverse possession. The appellate court allowed the defendant’s counterclaim and ordered recovery of possession.
The legal heirs of the plaintiff then approached the High Court in second appeal, raising issues relating to adverse possession, limitation, and alleged deficiency of court fee in the defendant’s appeal.
The High Court rejected all these arguments. It ruled that once the agreement to sell itself was disbelieved, the claim of possession based on part performance automatically failed. The Court reiterated settled law that permissive possession can never ripen into adverse possession unless there is a clear and hostile claim of ownership against the true owner, which was completely absent in this case.
On limitation, the Court agreed with the appellate court that the defendant’s counterclaim for possession was not time-barred, as the cause of action effectively arose only after the plaintiff’s claim of ownership was rejected. The Court also held that deficiency in court fee is a curable defect and does not invalidate the appeal.
Finding no substantial question of law or any error in the appellate court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the direction to hand over possession to the defendant, finally bringing the long-standing dispute to an end.
