'Adverse Possession Is A Heritable Right': Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Widow's Claim After Husband's Death
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a wife's claim of adverse possession after her husband's death, holding that she is entitled to have her name recorded in the revenue records.Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Entries in revenue record reflect that unauthorized possession was very much in the knowledge of State since 1963 and for completion of 30 years of adverse possession without...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a wife's claim of adverse possession after her husband's death, holding that she is entitled to have her name recorded in the revenue records.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur: “Entries in revenue record reflect that unauthorized possession was very much in the knowledge of State since 1963 and for completion of 30 years of adverse possession without any interruption, interference, objection despite being in knowledge of the Revenue Agency, Gurdass during his life time had right to claim title on the basis of adverse possession and after his death, his adverse possession is heritable. Thus plaintiff is entitled to inherit the encroachment with claim of adverse possession by clubbing the period of possession of her husband since 1963.”
Background Facts:
The plaintiff filed a Civil Suit claiming that her husband had occupied Government land in Bilaspur district, Himachal Pradesh, on 13.1.1963, which is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1963-64. She asserted that her husband's continuous, open, and peaceful possession for more than 30 years matured into ownership by adverse possession.
Being illiterate, she and her husband could not get the name changed in the revenue records. She got to know about this in 2009, when she approached the revenue office for documents to take a loan. Later, the revenue agency tried to forcibly evict her, after which she approached the Civil Court seeking a declaration of ownership and a direction to state record her name as owner in the revenue records in place of her husband.
The Trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff and held that she was entitled to the property and restrained the State from evicting her. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal, which was dismissed and the decree passed by the Trial Court was upheld.
Thereafter, the State filed an appeal before the High Court.
Findings:
The Court noted that the State itself admitted that the plaintiff and her husband had continuously occupied the land since 1963, which was reflected in the revenue records and that no steps were ever taken by the State to evict them.
Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the encroachment with a claim of adverse possession by clubbing the period of possession of her husband since 1963.
The second question raised by the State was that Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act bars Civil Courts from deciding matters about revenue entries. The Court clarified that this bar is not absolute, because Section 171 begins with “Except as otherwise provided by this Act, which means there are exceptions in the same Act.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and held that adverse possession can be inherited, and Civil Courts can declare and correct title in such cases.
Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs
Case No.: RSA No. 372 of 2016
Date of Decision: 09.07.2025
For the Appellant: Mr. Vishav Deep, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Ms.Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate vice Mr. Parv Sharma, Advocate