Landmark Judgements on Adverse Possession
The possession of the property is a right of a person over the property to enjoy it and holding the title of that land. Though the ownership may not be with the possession holder yet the one who is in possession of the property enjoys the property.
Table of Contents
- Narasamma V A.Krishnappa Thr. Lrs
- Sri Uttam Chand (D) Through LRS. Vs. Nathu Ram (D) Through LRS,
- Vidya Devi V The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors
- Ravinder Kaur Grewal V Manjit Kaur
- Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India & Others
- Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others
- Dagadabai (Dead) By Lrs vs Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari
Narasamma V A.Krishnappa Thr. Lrs , 26th August, 2020
In this case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff wherein he stated that he and his late brother were absolute owners of agricultural land and sought a direction to remove the temporary structure put up by the defendant for running a fuel depot on the scheduled property. On the other hand, the defendant pleaded that the said property was sold by his brother to his wife.
However, the sale deed was not registered because of the prohibition on the registration of a piece of land. Further, the wife of the defendant has also got the right of ownership over the said site property by way of adverse possession. After the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, the plaintiff then approached High Court.
The HC decreed the suit on the ground that the original defendant had not been able to establish the plea of adverse possession.
Later SC after agreeing with HC’s view observed that the claim of title from 1976 and the plea of adverse possession from 1976 cannot simultaneously hold. On the failure to establish the plea of title, it was necessary to prove as to from which date did the possession of the wife of the defendant amount to a hostile possession in a peaceful, open, and continuous manner.
The bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kaul, Ajay Rastogi and Aniruddha Bose held that the plea of adverse possession cannot be simultaneously taken and from the same date. The court observed that the plea on the title and adverse possession are inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.
Sri Uttam Chand (D) Through LRS. Vs. Nathu Ram (D) Through LRS, 2020 SCC Online SC 37
In this case, Plaintiff filed the suit for possession on 17th February 1979 and alleged that the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the property, and refused to vacate the same. He further stated that he had purchased the property from the Managing Officer of the Department of Rehabilitation, GOI on 4th January 1965 in a public auction and got the Certificate of sale on 4th January, 1965. Defendants, on the other hand, denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, and asserted that their house existed on the property for more than the last two centuries and also have tax receipts of the same from 1963. Defendants never admitted that the suit property vests with plaintiff or Managing Officer. It is pertinent to note that the defendants had never admitted that the suit property vests with the plaintiff or Managing Officer. After considering the facts of the cases, the Supreme Court stated that the defendants have denied the title not only of Managing Officer but also of the plaintiff. The plea of the defendant is only of continuous possession but there is no such plea raised by the defendant that the possession was hostile to the true owner of the suit property. In order to seek adverse possession, it is essential that the possession must be known and in denial to the true owner. As essential requirement of the hostile possession is not fulfilled, defendants are not entitled to adverse possession. Adverse Possession essentially requires that the possession must be in continuity, publicity, and hostile to the title of the true owner. All the three essentialities should coexist for adverse possession. The bench comprising of Justice L.Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta held that mere continuity of possession cannot be termed as ‘Adverse Possession.
Vidya Devi V The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, MANU/SC/0016/2020
In this case, Supreme Court granted relief to a 80 year old, illiterate widow whose land was forcibly acquired by the Himachal Pradesh Government without following due process of law for the purpose of road construction. A bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Justices Ajay Rastogi held that a state being a welfare state cannot invoke the doctrine of adverse possession to perfect title over land grabbed from private citizens as it is a violation of the human right and a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court also directed the state to pay compensation along with the statutory benefits including the solatium within the period of 8 weeks.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal V Manjit Kaur, (2019)8 SCC 729,
In the present case, the question that raised before the Supreme Court was ‘Whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession?
The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ Court by overruling the judgment of Gurudwara Sahib V Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another, (2014)1 SCC 669, has held that the Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 not only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant but also allows a plaintiff to use it as a sword to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. An expression “title” under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would also include the title acquired by the plaintiff by way of adverse possession. The plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by the plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1983 as it is nowhere written under the article that the plaintiff in case of infringement of any its rights.
Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India & Others (2004) 10 SCC 779
Three suits were filed by the first respondent in respect of the three properties seeking a declaration as to the owner of the suit properties on the ground that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and consequential relief for a permanent injunction. The claim made by the first respondent is that they acquired the suit property under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (Ancient Monuments Act) and a notification has been published in that regard and the suit property had been entered in the Register of Ancient Protected Monuments incharge of the Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the Government of India enacted the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the suit property came to be under the management of the Department of Archeological Survey, Government of India. It is asserted by the first respondent that in all the relevant records, the name of the Government of India has been shown as the owner of the suit property and that they came to know that the defendants got published a notification showing that the suit property as having been declared as ‘Wakf Property’ in terms of section 26 of the Wakf Act, 1954 and was also stated to have been published in the Gazette. In as much as the suit property since inception was under the ownership of the plaintiff with lawful possession thereof, defendants could not have made any claim thereto nor get the same declared as Wakf property. The defendants contested this claim of the plaintiffs in the original suits and that after following due procedure publication has been made in the Karnataka Gazette in terms of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the order passed by the concerned officer is binding on the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any ownership on the ground of adverse possession. Supreme Court held in the present case that in the eyes 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. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi 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 who is claiming ownership by way of adverse possession must fulfill all the above requisites.
Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Others, (2009) 16 SCC 517
Hemaji had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking a declaration that he is the lawful owner of suit land and Bhikhabhai be restrained from causing hindrance in the possession and occupation of the suit property. In its judgment dated April 05, 1986, the Trial Court held that Hemaji had taken forcible possession of the suit in 1960 and was in continuous possession of the same till 1986, which was proved from the register of the right of cultivation and therefore, became the owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession.
Significantly, Hemaji had never pleaded adverse possession in his suit and nor was an issue framed by the trial court with regard to the ownership by way of adverse possession. In the appeal against the said order, the appellate court held that Hemaji had failed to prove that the suit land was purchased by him and in the absence of crucial pleadings and evidence pertaining to adverse possession, Hemaji finally approached the Court by way of a special leave petition. Supreme Court by upholding the contention of both the Trial Court and Appellate Court held that the Appellant had also failed to establish that he had perfected his title by way of adverse possession.
Supreme Court observed that the law of adverse possession which prevents an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical, and wholly disproportionate. The Court also recommended the Union of India to make appropriate changes in the law of adverse possession.
Dagadabai (Dead) By Lrs vs Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari ,(2017) 13 SCC 705
This is an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, whereby the Single Judge of the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein. In this case, plaintiff Dagadabai filed a Civil Suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the respondent claiming therein a decree for possession in relation to the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that she is the owner of the suit property as the same is inherited by her exclusively on the death of her father(Rustum) whereas the defendant is in unlawful possession of the suit land without any right, title and interest therein and, therefore, he is to be dispossessed from the suit land. Respondent, on the one hand, contended that he became the owner of the suit land by inheritance as an adopted son of Rustum. In the second place, he denied the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit land and set up a plea of adverse possession to claim his ownership over the suit land. The plaintiff sought a decree for possession on the strength of her title against the respondent. The Supreme Court in the present case held that it is a settled principle of the law of adverse possession that the person, who claims title over the property on the strength of adverse possession and thereby wants the Court to divest the true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against the true owner of the property. It is equally well-settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession. In this defendant, respondent herein did not admit the ownership of the plaintiff over the sit property, therefore in such a case he was entitled to claim a suit property by way of adverse possession.