JANATHA DAL PARTYversusTHE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS & OTHERS

                    [2014] 1 S.C.R. 747


                   JANATHA DAL PARTY                            A
                              v.
     THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS & OTHERS
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38991 of 2013)
                    JANUARY 21, 2014
                                                                B
 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

     Suit:

     Suit by Indian National Congress for declaration of title c
to and for possession of Congress Bhavan in City of
Bangalore after split in Congress - Held: The order of EC/
and Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali's case clearly indicate that
the Congress then led by Indira Gandhi had established rights
on the properties in question - On facts, it is clearly found 0
that Congress (0) or Janata Dal had no right in the suit
property and as such the various lease deeds executed by
them also cannot stand in the eye of law - Time granted to
respondents to vacate the premises.

     The plaintiffs-respondents nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for    E
declaration of plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 over the suit property
and for its possession, stating that suit land was donated
by its owner for construction of a Congress House. A
registered Gift Deed dated 22.4.1949 in respect of the suit
land was executed by its owner in favour of the                 F
Bangalore City Congress Committee. The All India
Congress Party constructed the Congress Bhavan on the
suit land. Subsequently, as a result of split in the party,
Congress (J) was declared by the Election Commission
of India as the Indian National Congress and the said           G
decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sadiq Ali's
case. However, when the suit property came in
possession of Congress (0) and Janata Party, lease
deeds were executed in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and
                            747                                 H
    748      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 1 S.C.R.


A defendants 9 to 12 claimed themselves as tenants. The
  plaintiffs' case was that Janata Party and /or Congress
  (0) had no right, title or interest for granting the lease
  deeds. The case of the appellant-defendant no. 1 was that
  the judgment in Sadiq Ali would not confer any title,
B ownership or possession of the suit property on the
  plaintiffs. Further, it was also pleaded that the suit itself
  was barred by the law of limitation. The trial court decreed
  the suit. RFA filed by Janata Party was dismissed by the
  Division Bench of the High Court.
c         Dismissing the petition, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. It cannot be accepted that the decision of
  the ECI or the judgment of this Court in Sadiq Ali would
  have no bearing, so far as the facts of the instant case are
D concerned. ECI, after applying the test of majority at the
  organizational level and the legislative wings, took the view
  that Congress (J) group of Congress came to be recognized
  as the Congress for all purposes. The order of ECI and this
  Court clearly indicate that the Congress then led by Indira
E Gandhi had established rights on the properties in
  question. Since, on facts, it has found that the defendants
  have no right over the property in question, the various
  lease deeds executed by them also cannot stand in the
  eye of law. [para 10] [755-D-H; 756-A]
F        Shri Sadiq Ali and another v. The Election Commission
    of India, New Delhi and others 1972 (2) SCR 318 = (1972)
    4 sec 664 - relied on.

       1.2. The suit property was gifted by registered gift
G deed dated 22.4.1949 by its owner in favour of Bangalore
  City Congress Committee. Plaintiffs could successfully
  trace their title and interest over the suit property towards
  that gift deed executed in the year 1949, coupled with the
  various declarations by the ECI recognizing the plaintiff
H
     JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL                 749
                 CONGRESS
as the real Congress and the Judgment of this Court              A
affirming the same. [para 11] [756-A-C]

     1.3. Janata Party came into picture only in thET year
1977. On facts, it is clearly found that Congress (0) had
no right in the suit property. In the instant case, Janata       8
Dal (Secular) was impleaded as defendant only on
14.10.2003 and the disputed property was known as the
Congress Bhavan till the formation of Janta Dal in the
year 1977. It is relevant to note that the defendants had
never accepted plaintiffs as the owner of the property. On       C
the contrary, their specific case was that the 1st
defendant was the owner of the property. On facts, it was
found that the 1st defendant had no title over the suit
property. Further, the entire burden of proving that the
possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs, is on the
defendant. On the other hand, the possession of the suit         D
property was throughout of Congress and its successor
parties and not that of the petitioner. It was after the split
in Janata Party and, subsequently before the filing of the
suit, that Janata Dal continued to be in possession of the
suit property. The plea of limitation and adverse                E
possession was elaborately considered by the courts
below and there is no error in the findings recorded by
them on that ground as well. Further, no substantive
question of law arises in the case. [para 12] [756-C-G]
                                                                 F
    1.4. Considering the facts that the petitioner is in
possession of the property for a considerable long
period, time up to 31.12.2014 is granted to vacate the
premises subject to furnishing the undertaking. [para 13]
[757-A]
                                                                 G
                     Case Law Reference:
    1972 (2) SCR 318          relied on               para 2
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil} No.               H
38991 of 2013.
    750      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A       From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2013 of the
    High Court Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 2011 of 2005.
        Gopal Subramanium, Prashant Kumar, Triveni Poteker,
    Shyam Nanda, Chandra Bhushan Prasad for the Petitioner.
B       P.P. Rao, S.S. Naganand, Venkita Subramonium,
    Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Rahat Bansal, Akshat Kulshrestha,
    Surajit Bhadhuri, Swarnendu Chatterjee, K.C. Mittal, R.K.
    Rathore for the Respondents.

c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this case,
  concerned with the ownership and possession of Premises No.
  3, Race Course Road, Bangalore, 'A' scheduled property,
  wherein, at present, the political party Office of Janata Dal
D (Secular) is situated. The suit property originally belonged to
  one Sri C. Rangaswamy, who was the resident of Property No.
  54, Hospital Road, Baleput, Bangalore City, executed a
  registered Gift Deed dated 22.4.1949 in favour of Bangalore
  City Congress Committee which was having its office at No.
E 142, Cottonpet, Bangalore City, which measured 5330 sq.
  yards. The land was donated by the donor for the purpose of
  construction of Congress House, wherein the All India Congress
  Party constructed a building, by name, 'Congress Bhavan', in
  a portion of the suit property. In the year 1969, there was split
F within the Indian National Congress giving rise to two groups,
  one led by late Smt. Indira Gandhi, under the Presidentship of
  late Sri Jagajivan Ram and the other group led by late Sri S.
  Nijalingappa. The group led by Jagajivan Ram was then called
  the 'Indian National Congress (J)', whereas the other group led
G by Nijalingappa was called as 'Indian National Congress (O)'.
  The split in the party at the centre had its own effect in the State
  of Karnataka as well. The then Mysore Pradesh Congress
  Party broke up into Congress (J) and Congress (0)
  corresponding to those groups in the All Indian Congress
H Committee at the Centre. Each group claimed itself to be the 1
    . JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL                  751
       CONGRESS [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
real Indian National Congress. That dispute came up before the     A
Election Commission of India (ECI).

     2. The ECI, applying the test of majority at the
organizational level and the legislative wings, by its order
11.1.1971 held that the Congress {J) was the Indian National
                                                                   8
Congress. The decision of the ECI was upheld by this Court
in Shri Sadiq Ali and another v. The Election Commission of
India, New Delhi and others (1972) 4 SCC 664. Consequently,
Congress (J) group, formed as the Indian National Congress,
came to be recognized as the Indian ~ational Congress for all      C
purposes.

     3. The General Elections to the Lok Sabha were held in
the year 1977. The opposition parties consisting of Congress
(0) Group - led by Nijalingappa, Lok Dal headed by late Sri
 Charan Singh, Jana Sangha - led by Sri A.B. Vajapayee and         D
 Congress for Democracy - led by Sri Jagjivan Ram, fought
elections together as one front under the name of Janata Party.
 Congress was defeated in that election. Janata Party formed
the Government at the Centre, but did not last long. In the year
 1978, there was a further split within the Congress. National     E
Convention of the Congress was held at New Delhi on 1.1.1978
and 2.1.1978, in which members of the All India Congress
Committee,· Members of Parliament, members of the State
Legislatures and Congress candidates participated and they
unanimously elected Smt. Indira Gandhi as the President,           F
though Sri K. Brahmananda Reddy was also in the fray. ECI
was called upon to examine that dispute as well. Later, Sri D.
Devaraj Urs succeeded Sri Brahmananda Reddy as the
President of that group, which came to be known as Congress
(U). However, Indira Gandhi continued to be the leader of the      G
main body which was identified as the Congress (I). The
Election Commission allotted separate symbols to the
Congress (U) and (I) groups. The election to the Lok Sabha took
place in December 1979 and Congress (I) was voted back to
the Lok Sabha.
                                                                   H
    752      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A       4. The Election Commission, in the meantime, resolved
  the dispute pending before it and recognized Indira Gandhi as
  the President of the Party, known by the name of Congress (I).
  It was also held that the group led by D. Devaraj Urs, known by
  the name of Congress (U), was not the Congress, leaving liberty
B to that group to approach the Commission for its recognition
  as a party, taking a different name for itself. D. Devaraj Urs,
  purporting to be the President of Congress (U), filed a petition
  for special leave to appeal to this Court against the order of
  the ECI dated 23.7.1981. This Court, after issuing notices to
c all the parties and hearing counsel on either side, dismissed
  the Special Leave Petition on 14.8.1981.

       5. We have narrated the above facts to indicate that the
  suit property, all other properties and funds belonging to or
  referred to as belonging to the Congress are thus the properties
D and funds of the 1st Plaintiff herein. Similarly, all properties and
  funds belonging to or referred to as belonging to the erstwhile
  Mysore Pradesh Congress Committee or the KPCC thus
  belong to the 2nd Plaintiff herein. The 'A' Schedule property is
  owned by 2nd and 1st plaintiffs herein. The land comprised
E therein was acquired by the erstwhile Mysore Pradesh
  Congress Committee, as it was then called, and it constructed
  the buildings standing in the suit property, which was earlier
  known as Congress Bhavan.

F      6. We have already indicated that Janata Party came into
  possession of the schedule property in question in the year
  1977. During the period, the above mentioned property was
  under the control of Congress (0) group. Two lease deeds were
  executed in respect of two portions of the vacant land, vide
G lease deeds dated 22.1.1971 and 10.4.1971, in favour of 3rd
  respondent. After the Janata Party came in possession in the
  year 1977, the previous Janata Party, a unit of 1st defendant,
  granted lease of a portion of the plaint 'A', schedule property
  in favour of 4th defendant on 04.08.1981, of which defendants
  5 to 8 are partners, the portion leased is described in the plaint
H
     JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL                     753
      CONGRESS [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
'C' schedule. The Janata Party or the previous Janata Party had      A
no right, title or interest for granting lease of the plaint 'C'.
Defendants 9-12 are stated to be the tenants in portions of the
building constructed in 'A' schedule property, having taken the
same on lease from the 1st defendant.
                                                                      B
      7. We have indicated that the plaintiffs instituted the
present suit seeking a declaration of their title and for
possession of the suit property and also sought to recover
Rs.36,000/- towards past mesne profits. Defendant 1 and 2
filed their written statements on 10.11.1983 contesting the suit, C
but the factual details were not disputed as such. But, it was
pleaded that the decision taken by_ the ECI or the judgment of
this Court in Sadiq Ali (supra) would not confer any title,
ownership or possession of the suit property on the plaintiffs.
According to the defendants, throughout, the above mentioned
property was in the possession of Congress (0), and after its D
merger, it was in the possession of Janata Party and, at no
point of time, the plaintiffs were in possession. Further, it was
also pleaded that the suit itself was barred by the law of
limitation. Defendants 4 to 6 filed a written statement on
31.7.1984 disputing the plaintiffs' right to bring the suit on behalf E
of Indian National Congress. They pleaded that the Congress
(0) continued to be in possession as the absolute owner of the
suit property. Further, it is also stated that Congress (0) and
some other political parties joined together and constituted
Janata Party and Congress (0) was one of the constituents of F
Janata Party, and the property in question became the property
of Janata Party and, since 1977, Janata Party has been
enjoying the suit property and they were having their rights to
lease out the property to other contesting defendants.
                                                                     G
     8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial
Court framed 24 issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 5 witnesses
were examined and 17 documents were exhibited. On behalf
of defendants, 2 witnesses were examined and 18 documents
were exhibited. The trial Court, after examining the rival           H
    754     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A contentions, and, on facts, came to the conclusion that
  Congress (0), which was led by Nijalingappa, lost its identity
  as Indian National Congress by virtue of the decision of the
  Election Commission and as pointed out by this Court in Sadiq
  Ali case. The trial Court also held that this Court recognized
s the group led by Jagjivan Ram and Indira Gandhi as the Indian
  National Congress. Consequently, the properties and funds of
  Indian National Congress, before its split in 1969, would be of
  Congress (J) lead by Jagjivan Ram and Indira Gandhi and it
  would not be the property of the dissident group which was
c identified as Congress (0). On facts, it was noticed that
  Congress (0) was subsequently merged with Janata Party and,
  on account of said merger, Janata Party would not acquire
  ownership of the suit schedule property. It was held that since
  Janata Party was not the owner of the suit property, it had no
  right to grant lease in favour of 4th defendant and grant of such
0
  lease by Janata Party would not bind the plaintiffs. Similarly, it
  was also held that the grant of lease in 'C' schedule property
  in favour of 3rd defendant by the President of Mysore Pradesh
  Congress Committee, a unit of Congress (0) party, was illegal
  and was not preceded by approval or permission of Indian
E National Congress. The trial Court also rejected the plea of
  adverse possession and limitation and held that the plaintiffs
  have succeeded in establishing their title over the properties
  in question and, consequently, held that the plaintiff is entitled
  to recovery of possession and also mesne profits. Aggrieved
F by the same, Janata Party filed RFA No. 2011 of 2005 which
  was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High
  Court concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and
  dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 11.10.2013,
  against which this SLP has been preferred.
G
       9. Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the petitioner, reiterated all the factual contentions
  raised before the trial Court as well as the High Court based
  on the basis of the written statements filed by the contesting
H respondents and submitted that neither the decision of the ECI
      JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL                    755
       CONGRESS [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
nor the judgment of this Court in Sadiq Ali (supra), would confer     A
any title or possession on the plaintiffs over the suit property.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintfff could
succeed in establishing their title and possession only on the
basis of independent documents and not on the basis of the
decision of the ECI or the judgment of this Court in Sadiq Ali.       B
Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court has
erred in noticing that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
specifies that the limitation for possession of immovable
property or any interest therein based on title is 12 years and
the time from which the period begins to run is when the              c
possession of the defendant became adverse to the plaintiff.
Learned senior counsel pointed out that, in the instant case,
possession of the defendant and their predecessor in title
became adverse to that of the plaintiff more than 12 years prior
to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit was liable to be
                                                                      0
dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.

      10. We have heard the arguments at length and have also
gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as the
judgments of the Courts below. We find it difficult to accept the
contention raised by the learned senior counsel that the E
decision of the ECI dated 11.1.1971 or the judgment of this
Court in Sadiq Ali (supra) would have no bearing, so far as the
facts of this case are concerned. The question as fo which of
the two groups, Congress (J) or Congress (0) (the then
Congress Party) should be recognized as the Congress, as · F
already indicated, came before the ECI. ECI, after applying the
test of majority at the organizational level and the legislative
wings, took the view that Congress (J) group of Congress came
to be recognized as the Congress for all purposes. The order
of ECI and this Court clearly indicate that the Congress then G
led by Indira Gandhi had established rights on the properties
in question. The Courts below have narrated in detail how the
suit property came into the hands of the plaintiffs and how the
Congress (0) followed by Janata Party ceased to have any
right over the suit property in question. Since, on facts,~it was H
    756      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 1 S.C.R.


A found that the defendants have no right over the property in
  questio.(l, the various lease deeds executed by them also
  cannot stand in the eye of law.
       11. We have noticed that the property in question was
  gifted vide registered gift deed dated 22.4.1949 by
8 Rangaswamy in favour of Bangalore City Congress Committee.
  Plaintiffs could successfully trace their title and interest over the
  suit property towards that gift deed executed in the year 1949,
  coupled with the various declarations by the ECI recognizing
  the petitioner as the real Congress and the Judgment of this
C Court affirming the same.
        12. We are also not impressed by the arguments raised
  by the learned senior counsel on the plea of limitation. So far
  as Janata Party is concerned, it came into picture only in the
D year 1977. On facts, it is clearly found that Congress (0) had
  no right in the suit property. In the instant case, Janata Dal
  (Secular) was imp leaded as defendant only on 14.10.2003 and
  the disputed property was known as the Congress Bhavan till
  the formation of Janta Dal in the year 1977. It is relevant to note
E that the defendants had never accepted plaintiffs as the owner
  of the property. On the contrary, their specific case was that the
  1st defendant was the owner of the property. On facts, it was
  found that the 1st defendant had no title over the property in
  question. Further, the entire burden of proving that the
  possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs, is on the
F defendant. On the other hand, the possession of the suit
  property was throughout of Congress (0) and its successor
  parties and not that of the petitioner herein. It was after the split
  in Janata Party and, subsequently before the filing of the suit,
  Janata Dal continued to be in possession of the suit property.
G The plea of limitation and adverse possession was elaborately
  considered by the Courts below and we find no error in the
  findings recorded by the Courts below on that ground as well.
  Further, no substantive question of law arises for our
  consideration. The SLP, therefore, lacks merits and is
H dismissed.
         JANATHA DAL PARTY v. INDIAN NATIONAL                    757
          CONGRESS [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
         13. Considering the facts that the petitioner is in             A
   possession of the property for a considerable long period, we
   are inclined to grant time up to 31.12.2014 to vacate the
   premises, for which the petitioner has to prefer an undertaking
   before this Court within one month from today stating that the
   petitioner would vacate the premises within the stipulated time       B
   and that the petitioner would pay the entire arrears of rent within
   a period of three months and will continue to pay the rent without
   any default. If the petitioner commits two consecutive defaults
   in payment of monthly rent or fails to file the undertaking, the
   time granted by this Court would not be available and it will be      c
-. open to the respondents to get the judgment/decree executed.

  R.P.                                             SLP dismissed.