The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has upheld the rejection of a civil suit filed by three members of Chaudhary family claiming ownership of a 5.40 acre land parcel near Futala Lake through adverse possession. The court held that merely claiming possession for more than 100 years was not sufficient to establish a legal claim without explaining when and how the possession began and when it became hostile to the actual owner. Justice Vrushali V Joshi allowed a second appeal filed by the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University (MAFSU). The court set aside a November 19, 2025, order of District Judge-9, Nagpur, which had restored the family’s suit and remanded it for trial. It confirmed the trial court’s April 25, 2025, order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

The disputed property is Survey No. 20 of Mouza Telangkhedi. It measures approximately 5.40 acres and includes structures standing on the land. MAFSU claimed ownership under a Government Resolution dated April 16, 2005. The respondents are Meena Chaudhary (60) and her sons former corporator Kamlesh (40) and Mukesh (38). They live near Futala Lake, close to the MES Pump on Late Dilip Chaudhary Road in Telangkhedi. The family claimed that its ancestors, including Dayaram Chaudhary and later his sons had possessed and used the property for more than a century for dairy activities. On this basis, they sought a declaration of ownership through adverse possession. They also challenged the measurement of Survey No. 20 conducted on February 24, 2025, describing it as illegal, arbitrary and malafide. They sought a permanent injunction to prevent the university and other defendants from dispossessing them or removing the structures on the land.

 

MAFSU opposed the suit, arguing that the family had failed to provide the essential details required to establish adverse possession. It pointed out that the plaint did not specify when the family’s predecessor entered the property, the nature of the initial possession or when the possession became hostile to the lawful owner. The university also argued that the challenge to the land measurement should be pursued through the statutory remedies available under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, including an appeal under Section 247. The dispute had earlier figured in Regular Civil Suit Nos. 1038 of 1984 and 2154 of 1987, in which claims relating to the property and adverse possession had been raised. The trial court had initially rejected the plaint. However, the family challenged the decision before the District Court. The first appellate court set aside the rejection and sent the matter back for adjudication on merits which prompted MAFSU to approach the High Court.

 

While allowing the university’s appeal, Justice Joshi observed that adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. A person claiming ownership on this basis must plead the commencement, nature and character of possession and establish when it became hostile to the true owner. The High Court concluded that the plaint did not disclose a real and enforceable cause of action for claiming ownership through adverse possession. It therefore restored the trial court’s order rejecting the suit and quashed the District Court’s decision to revive it. Advocate Atul Pande, a/w Advs A Killedar, S A Wandalkar and A Shah represented the appellant while Adv A D Sonak for respondents.