1. Dispute over land title involving claims of possession and adverse possession in suits for declaration, injunction, and possession. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : N.Santosh Hegde
M.Nadar Kesavan Nadar
Versus
Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar (Dead) By Lrs
Case No. : 1465 of 1986
Date of Decision : 11/2/99
Adverse possession requires positive evidence of hostile possession and denial of the real owner's title. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on this issue should not be disturbed by a High Court in second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote:(A) Adverse Possession - Requirement of hostile possession - Possession for a period of 12 years alone is insufficient to establish title by adverse possession; there must be positive evidence to show that such possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial of the owner's title to the property. (Paras 3, 4 and 6)
(B) Second Appeal - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - A High Court in second appeal is not justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court and the lower appellate court unless such findings are found to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 6)
(C) Burden of Proof - In a claim for title based on adverse possession, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting such title to lead evidence demonstrating that the legal requirements of adverse possession have been satisfied. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose over 24.5 cents of land. The respondents were in possession of the land for over 12 years. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court concluded that the respondents had not perfected their title by adverse possession because there was no positive evidence to show that their possession was hostile to the real owner or in denial of the owner's title. However, the High Court reversed these findings in a second appeal, holding that the duration of possession and the demolition of a wall on the land were sufficient to infer adverse possession.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in examining the evidence to reverse the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Since the trial court and lower appellate court had discussed the evidence and concluded that the respondents failed to establish hostile possession, these findings of fact could not be disturbed as they were not perverse nor based on no evidence.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and lower appellate court regarding the failure of the respondents to prove adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: To establish adverse possession, the claimant must provide positive evidence of hostile possession and denial of the real owner's title. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on this issue should not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Result: Appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court and restoring the order of the lower appellate court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether possession of land for over twelve years without positive evidence of hostility constitutes adverse possession sufficient to perfect title. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings of fact regarding hostile possession without establishing that such findings were perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 6 )
4. Concurrent findings of fact on the absence of hostile possession cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless found to be perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; order of the High Court set aside and order of the lower appellate court restored. (Para 7 )
6. What is required to establish title by adverse possession?
Possession must be hostile to the real owner, amount to a denial of the owner's title, and continue for a statutory period of twelve years, supported by positive evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
7. When can a High Court disturb concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
A High Court cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact unless it concludes that the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 6 )
8. Who bears the burden of proof in a claim for adverse possession?
The party claiming to have perfected title by adverse possession bears the burden of proof to lead evidence establishing such a claim. (Para 6 )
(1) THE dispute in this appeal pertains to 24.5 cents of land in respect of which a litigation had commenced about 29 years ago.
(2) THE appellant had filed a suit for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of 1.46 cents of land being OS No. 645 of 1970. Thereafter, the defendant in the said suit filed OS No. 3 of 1971 against the appellant herein. The said suit was also for declaration, injunction and possession in respect of about 1.60 cents of land including therein 24.5 cents of land with which we are concerned in the present case.
(3) BOTH the suits were tried together. The trial court came to the conclusion that insofar as 24.5 cents of land is concerned, which alone is the subject-matter of this appeal, the respondents were in possession of the said 24.5 cents of land but they had not perfected the title by adverse possession inasmuch as there was no evidence to show that their possession was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed and that it continued for a period of 12 years. It seems that partial relief was granted to both the sides by the trial court but insofar as this parcel of land of 24.5 cents is concerned the claim of title to the same by the respondents on the basis of adverse possession was not accepted.
(4) THE lower appellate court, on two appeals being filed against the common judgment of the trial court, came to the conclusion that in respect of the parcel of land in dispute, the respondents herein had been in possession for more than 12 years. The lower appellate court however, observed that it had not been established by positive evidence that such possession of the disputed property was hostile to the real owner and in denial of his title. In this connection he noted that the respondents herein, in the suit OS No. 3 of 1971 which was filed had not prayed for declaration of title in respect of this land on the ground of prescription by adverse possession.
(5) IN second appeal the High Court observed that inasmuch as the lower appellate court had found that the respondents herein had been in possession of this parcel of land for a period of over 12 years, therefore, "assumption of the courts below that there is no evidence of an open, hostile and adverse possession is based on misapprehension of the legal principles". The High Court noted that the demolition of the wall which had existed on the land in question was an important piece of evidence indicative of the intention of the parties. In view thereof the only inference possible was that the possession of the respondents satisfied the requirements of an adverse possession. The findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court were reversed by the High Court.
(6) IT appears to us that in second appeal the High Court was in error in examining the evidence and then reversing the finding of the trial court in the lower appellate court by holding that the possession of the respondents satisfied the requirements of adverse possession. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court had, in no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that the respondents had failed to establish by positive evidence that their possession of the disputed property was hostile to the real owner and in denial of his title. Even if the finding of fact was wrong, in our opinion this finding of fact could not be disturbed specially when the High Court has not come to the conclusion that the same was not perverse nor was based on no evidence. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have discussed the evidence on the record and then had come to the conclusion that the defence in Suit No. 645 of 1970, namely, the respondents herein, had failed in showing that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. It is to be noted that the issue in this regard placed the burden of proof on the respondents and as they had not led evidence to show that they had perf
