FEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION

JUDGEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT OF ADVERSE POSSESSION

Sl. No.	TITLE & CITATION	RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS
1.	Karnataka Board Of Wakf Vs. Government Of India And Others, (2004) 04 SC CK 0019	Para No.11 In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won''t affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is ''nec vi, nec clam, nec precario'', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : S M Karim v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567). Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus posited to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.  (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128)
2.	Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati And Others, (2003) 11 SC CK 0047	Para No.22 What is adverse possession? Every possession is not, in law, adverse possession. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title can be instituted within a period of 12 years calculated from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. By virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, at the determination of the period limited by the Act to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property stands extinguished. The process of acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner. A person, though having no right to enter into possession of the property of someone else, does so and continues in possession setting up title in himself and adversely to the title of the owner, commences prescribing title into himself and such prescription having continued for a period of 12 years, he acquires title not on his own but on account of the default or inaction on part of the real owner, which stretched over a period of 12 years results into extinguishing of the latter''s title. It is that extinguished title of the real owner which comes to vest in the wrongdoer. The law does not intend to confer any premium on the wrong doing of a person in wrongful possession; it pronounces the penalty of extinction of title on the person who though entitled to assert his right and remove the wrong doer and re-enter into possession, has defaulted and remained inactive for a period of 12 years, which the law considers reasonable for attracting the said penalty. Inaction for a period of 12 years is treated by the Doctrine of Adverse Possession as evidence of the loss of desire on the part of the rightful owner to assert his ownership and reclaim possession
3.	Smt. Nakkaraju Satyavathi Vs. Smt. Mulagada Venkata Ramana Kumari And Others, (2018) 06 AP CK 0002	Para No.20 The section assists the person in possession to acquire prescriptive title by adverse possession. When the title to property of the previous owner is extinguished, it passes on to the possessor and the possessory right gets transformed into ownership. Section 27 is an exception to the well accepted rule that limitation bars only the remedy and does not extinguish the title. It lays down a rule of substantive law by declaring that after the lapse of the period, the title ceases to exist and not merely the remedy. It means that since the person who had a right to possession has allowed his right to be extinguished by his inaction, he cannot recover the property from the person in adverse possession and as a necessary corollary thereto, the person in adverse possession is enabled to hold on to his possession as against the owner not in possession
4.	Valliamma Champaka Vs. Sivathanu Pillai And Others, (1963) 07 MAD CK 0021	Para No.35 This is an exception to the well accepted rule that limitation bars only the remedy and does not extinguish the title. It lays down a rule of substantive law by declaring that after the lapse of the period the title ceases to exist and not merely the remedy. A suit for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage and for recovery of possession of the hypotheca would obviously fall within Section 28. A mortgagor who allows his right of redemption to be barred by not instituting the suit as prescribed under Article 148 of the Indian Limitation Act, loses his title to the property. If this is the true position, the implication of a right of property in the non-redeeming mortgagor after the lapse of the period fixed in Article 148 is just to satisfy the contribution claim of the redeeming mortgagor. From this follows the right of the non-deeming mortgagor to get his share of the property until such time the contributory right of the co-mortgagor does not become extinct. It seems to me that once the non-redeeming mortgagor loses his right of ownership by the combined operation of Section 28 and Article 148 of the Indian Limitation Act, it would not be logical or a sound rule of law to assume that he would have further rights of redemption by a fresh application of Article 148, as if the co-mortgagor''s redemption can revive lost rights. I don''t think that the doctrine of subrogation has this effect. This, in my opinion, is another way of looking at the problem to reach the conclusion that the co-mortgagor''s redemption would not set in motion Article 148 of the Limitation Act, but would only give a twelve-year period to the non-redeeming mortgagor.
5.	Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. Rev. Father K.C. Alexander & Ors, (1968) 02 SC CK 0014	Para No.28 In our judgment this involves an incorrect approach to our problem. To express our meaning we may begin by reading Perry v. Clissold to discover if the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner has in any way been departed from. Perry v. Clissold reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly: "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is for ever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title."
6.	Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs. Commissioner Of Ranchi, (1981) 02 SC CK 0065	Para No.8 It was then observed by the High Court that mere sporadic acts of possession exercised from time to time would not be sufficient for the acquisition of title by adverse possession. As discussed above, the High Court has not at all cared even to go through the evidence regarding the nature of the acts said to have been committed by the appellant nor to find out whether they were merely sporadic or incidental. Another reason given by the High Court was that the adverse possession should have been effective and adequate in continuity and in publicity. Here, the High Court has gone wrong on a point of law. All that the law requires is that the possession must be open and without any attempt at concealment. It is not necessary that the possession must be so effective so as to bring it to the specific knowledge of the owner. Such a requirement may be insisted on, where an ouster of title is pleaded but that is not the case here. The findings, however, clearly show that the possession of the plaintiff was hostile to the full knowledge of the municipality. In this connection we might extract below the well considered findings recorded by the trial Court and Additional Judicial Commissioner both on the question of title and that of adverse possession
7.	G. Narayan Reddy Vs. P. Narayana Reddy, (2016) 02 AP CK 0023	Para No.34 It was also clarified in a series of decisions that while possession shall be open and exclusive and in assertion of one''s own right, the fact that the possessor did not know who the real owner was, will not make his possession any the less adverse. The intention to exclude others from the control of property is an essential element of factual possession.The intention to possess the property exclusively implies the intention to exclude all others including the true owner whether known or unknown to the adverse possessor
8.	P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy And Others Vs. Revamma And Others, (2007) 04 SC CK 0074	Para No.2 Specific Positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property.
9.	P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy And Others Vs. Revamma And Others, (2007) 04 SC CK 0074	Para No.14 What is really meant, in my judgment, is that the animus possidendi involves the intention, in one''s own name and on one''s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow.
10.	T. Anjanappa And Others Vs. Somalingappa And Another, (2006) 08 SC CK 0052	Para No.13 It is well recognized proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily means that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner''s title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former''s hostile action.
11.	G. Narayan Reddy Vs. P. Narayana Reddy, (2016) 02 AP CK 0023	Para No.35 The rationale for adverse possession rests broadly on the considerations that title to land should not long be in doubt, the society will benefit from someone making use of land the owner leaves idle and that that persons who come to regard the occupant as owner may be protected. The maxim that law and equity does not help those who sleep over their rights is invoked in support of prescription of title by adverse possession. In other words, the original title holder who neglected to enforce his rights over the land cannot be permitted to re-enter the land after a long passage of time. A situation lasting for a long period creates certain expectations and it would be unjust to disappoint those who trust on them. Another justification for the law of adverse possession is captured in the quote that possession is "nine points of the law".
12.	Meenugu Mallaiah Vs. Ananthula Rajaiah, (2016) 09 AP CK 0061	Para No.35 In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments, the possessory title is heritable since the possession is "nine points of the law." Quotation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is worthy of reference in the contest that "man like a tree in the cleft of a rock, gradually shapes his roots to the surroundings, and when the roots have grown to a certain size, can''t be displaced without cutting at his life". The said quotation is akin to adverse possession, who entered wrongfully in possession of the property raised constructions cannot be displaced except by removal in accordance with law. Therefore, a person in possession over a long period setting up hostile tile is entitled to protect his possession, but subject to proof of the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in cateena of decisions referred supra while deciding Point No. 1.
13.	Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan And Others, (2008) 09 SC CK 0080	Para No.34 Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner.
14.	State Of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar And Others, (2011) 09 SC CK 0046	Para No.32 Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner.
15.	Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan And Others, (2008) 09 SC CK 0080	Para No.34 to 36 34. Before parting with this case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. 35. We fail to comprehend why the law should place premium on dishonesty by legitimizing possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to loose its possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation. 36. In our considered view, there is an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession. We recommend the Union of India to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
16.	P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy And Others Vs. Revamma And Others, (2007) 04 SC CK 0074	Para No.33 The European Council of Human Rights importantly laid down three pronged test to judge the interference of government with the right of "peaceful enjoyment of property". While referring to Beyeler v. Italy [GC], No. 33202/96, 108-14, ECHR 2000-I, it was held that the "interference" should comply with the principle of lawfulness pursue a legitimate aim (public interest) by means reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realized.
17.	State Of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar And Others, (2011) 09 SC CK 0046	Para No.47 Adverse possession allows a trespasser - a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, in the eyes of law - to gain legal title to land which he has illegally possessed for 12 years. How 12 years of illegality can suddenly be converted to legal title is, logically and morally speaking, baffling. This outmoded law essentially asks the judiciary to place its stamp of approval upon conduct that the ordinary Indian citizen would find reprehensible.
18.	Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors, (2019) 08 SC CK 0018	Para No.59 & 60 59. We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. In case of dispossession by another person by taking law in his hand a possessory suit can be maintained under Article 64, even before the ripening of title by way of adverse possession. By perfection of title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. In case he has been dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse possession. Similarly, any other person who might have dispossessed the plaintiff having perfected title by way of adverse possession can also be evicted until and unless such other person has perfected title against such a plaintiff by adverse possession. Similarly, under other Articles also in case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff who has perfected the title by adverse possession, can sue and maintain a suit. 60. When we consider the law of adverse possession as has developed vis­à­vis to property dedicated to public use, courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession. There are instances when such properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised. In Such cases, on the land reserved for public utility, it is desirable that rights should not accrue. The law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession.
19.	Poona Ram Vs. Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors, (2019) 01 SC CK 0081	Para No.18 & 19 18. Having regard to the position of law and facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which has come down very heavily on the procedure adopted by the trial Judge in deciding the matter, more particularly when no fault can be found on facts with the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Generally, it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court when such findings are based on the evidence on record, and are not perverse or against the material on record. 19. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court and the reasons assigned for the same are not correct inasmuch as there is absolutely no material in favour of the case of the plaintiff to show possessory title. In order to claim possessory title, the plaintiff will have to prove his own case, and also will have to show that he has better title than any other person. Since there is no documentary proof that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, that too for a long period, he cannot be allowed to succeed based on minor discrepancies in the evidence of the defendants. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.

OR

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com