IMPORTANT POINT
Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor is essential to prove adverse possession.

Headnote:(i) Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 64 and 65 — Adverse possession — Ingredients of — Onus of proof — New consideration in adverse possession law — There must be intention to dispossess — One ‘T’ was owner of 5 acre 23 guntas of land — Adoptive father of respondent purchased a portion thereof measuring 1 acre 21 guntas on 11-9-1933 — By reason of two different sale deeds, dated 11-4-1934 and 5-7-1936, appellants plaintiffs purchased 2 acres 15 guntas and 3 acres 8 guntas of land respectively, out of the said plot — Appellants allegedly took over possession of entire 5 acres 23 guntas of land — However, when allegedly their possession was sought to be disturbed by respondent in year 1988, appellants filed a suit, claiming title on basis of adverse possession — Respondents denying and disputing assertion of appellants pleaded their own right, title and interest as also possession in or over the said 1 acre 21 guntas of land — Trial Judge decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs appellants have acquired title by adverse possession as they have been in possession of land for a period of more than 50 years — In appeal, High Court reversed trial Court’s judgment holding that important ingredients of adverse possession are not satisfied — Whether judgment of High Court in sustainable — (Yes).
       Held : Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessoror on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. (Para 5)
       To assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is required:
        1. Application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially “willful neglect” element on part of the owner established. Successful application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner.
        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. (Para 8)
       It is to be borne in mind that the respondent had already purchased 1 acre 21 guntas out of the 5 acres 25 guntas under a duly registered deed dated 1.9.1933. Appellant bought the entire chunk of 5 acres 23 guntas subsequent to the respondent’s transaction. The validity of such sale is not the question in the instant case but the transaction relating to 1 acre 23 Guntas remains an important surrounding circumstance to assess the nature of appellant’s possession. The question is whether it is a case of mistaken possession ignoramus of the previous sale or adverse possession having the mental element in the requisite degree to dispossess. Also much depends on the answer to the query regarding the starting point of adverse possession: when can the possession be considered to have become adverse? In the facts and circumstances of this case, the possession of appellant was effected through the sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936. Therefore, the alleged fact of adverse possession bears a pronounced backdrop of 1933 sale deed passing 1 acre 21 Guntas to the respondent. (Para 48)
       Are we to say that it is a sale with doubtful antecedents (1 acre 23 Guntas) sought to be perfected or completed through adverse possession? But that aspect of the matter is not under consideration herein. As has already been mentioned, adverse possession is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of continuous and willful neglect but also on account of possessor’s positive intent to dispossess. Therefore it is important to take into account before stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the paper-owner of the property. This test forms the basis of decision in the instant case. (Para 49)
       (ii) Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 64 and 65 — Adverse possession — Intention to dispossess vis-a-vis intention to possess — New considerations — Status of right to property — New Paradigm to Limitation Act.
       Held : It is interesting to see the development of adverse possession law in the backdrop of the status of Right to Property in the 21st Century. The aspect of stronger Property Rights Regime in general, coupled with efficient legal regimes furthering the Rule of Law argument, has redefined the thresholds in adverse possession law not just in India but also by the Strasbourg Court. Growth of Human Rights jurisprudence in recent times has also palpably affected the developments in this regard. (Para 9)
       Intention is a mental element which is proved and disproved through positive acts. Existence of some events can go a long way to weaken the presumption of intention to dispossess which might have painstakingly grown out of long possession which otherwise would have sufficed in a standard adverse possession case. The fact of possession is important in more than one ways: firstly, due compliance on this count attracts limitation act and it also assists the court to unearth as the intention to dispossess. (Para 11)
       Importantly, intention to possess can not be substituted for intention to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. The factum of possession in the instant case only goes on to objectively indicate intention to possess the land. As also has been noted by the High Court, if the appellant has purchased the land without the knowledge of earlier sale, then in that case the intention element is not of the variety and degree which is required for adverse possession to materialize. (Para 13)
       Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough to indicate their acquiescence. (Para 16)
       Human rights have been historically considered in the realm of individual rights such as, right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. but now human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context. (Para 36)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. versus Revamma & Ors. (!) (!) :

1. Core Legal Principle: Intention to Dispossess * Mere possession, regardless of its duration, does not convert permissible possession into adverse possession. * An intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor is an essential ingredient to prove adverse possession (!) . * The possession must be open, continuous, and hostile (!) (!) . * Intention to possess cannot be substituted for intention to dispossess. The fact of possession may indicate an intention to possess, but without a specific positive intent to dispossess the true owner, adverse possession does not materialize (!) (!) (!) .

2. Two-Pronged Enquiry for Adverse Possession To assess a claim of adverse possession, the court requires: * Prong 1: Application of limitation provisions, which jurisprudentially establishes a "willful neglect" element on the part of the owner, thereby distancing the title from the paper-owner (!) (!) . * Prong 2: A specific, positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor, which effectively shifts the title to the adverse possessor (!) (!) .

3. Facts of the Case * The respondent had purchased 1 acre 21 guntas of land via a registered deed dated 11-9-1933 (!) (!) . * The appellants purchased the entire 5 acres 23 guntas (including the portion already sold to the respondent) via sale deeds dated 11-4-1934 and 5-7-1936 (!) (!) . * The appellants took possession of the entire plot after these purchases but claimed title based on adverse possession when the respondent disturbed them in 1988 (!) (!) . * The Trial Court decreed the suit based on possession for over 50 years, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the ingredients of adverse possession were not satisfied (!) (!) .

4. Court's Reasoning and Holding * The background of the respondent's 1933 sale deed creates a presumption that the appellants' possession was not adverse but rather based on a mistake or ignorance of the prior sale (!) (!) . * The appellants' possession objectively indicated an "intention to possess," but there was no evidence of the requisite "intention to dispossess" (!) (!) . * The possession was not hostile enough to bring the matter to the knowledge of the plaintiff (respondent) to allow them an opportunity to object before the suit was filed (!) (!) . * The Supreme Court emphasized that stripping a lawful title requires a possessor with a "worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess" (!) (!) . * Held: The appeal was dismissed; the appellants failed to prove the necessary intention to dispossess (!) (!) .

5. Human Rights and Property Rights Context * The judgment notes the development of adverse possession law in the context of the Right to Property as a human right (!) (!) . * It references the European Court of Human Rights case JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom, highlighting a global trend where courts view statutes of limitation that override property rights with increasing scrutiny and an "unkind view" (!) (!) (!) . * The deprivation of property title due to inaction is considered potentially disproportionate and must strike a fair balance between public interest and the owner's rights (!) (!) .

6. Legal Requirements for Pleading Adverse Possession * The starting point of limitation (when possession became adverse) must be specifically pleaded and proved (!) (!) . * The true owner of the property must be specifically identified in the claim (!) (!) (!) . * The possession must satisfy the maxim nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (not by force, nor stealth, nor license) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

BACKGROUND FACTS

One Thippaiah was the owner of 5 acre 23 guntas of land having been recorded in Survey No. 153/1 of Chikkabanavara Village. Nanjapa, adoptive father of Respondent No. 1 purchased a portion thereof measuring 1 acre 21 guntas on 11.09.1933. By reason of two different sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936, the appellants herein purchased 2 acre 15 guntas and 3 acre 8 guntas of land respectively, out of the said plot. Despite the fact that Nanjapa purchased a portion of the said plot, the appellants allegedly took over possession of the entire 5 acre 23 guntas of land after the aforementioned purchases. However, when allegedly their possession was sought to be disturbed by the respondent in the year 1988, they filed a suit in the court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore which was marked as O.S. No. 287 of 1989. In the said suit, they claimed title on the basis of adverse possession stating:

“...The plaintiffs submit that in any event the plaintiffs have perfected their title by adverse possession as the plaintiffs have been in open, continuous uninterrupted and hostile possession of the plaint schedule land, adversely to the interest of any other person including the defendant for the past over fifty years exercising absolute rights of ownership in respect of the plaint schedule land...”

2. Defendants – Respondents in their written statement denied and disputed the aforementioned assertion of the plaintiffs and pleaded their own right, title and interest as also possession in or over the said 1 acre 21 guntas of land. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit inter alia holding that the plaintiffs appellants have acquired title by adverse possession as they have been in possession of the lands in question for a period of more than 50 years. On an appeal having been preferred there against by the respondents before the High Court, the said judgment of the Trial Court was reversed holding:

(i) “....The important averments of adverse possession are two fold. One is to recognize the title of the person against whom adverse possession is claimed. Another is to enjoy the property adverse to the title holder’s interest after making him known that such enjoyment is against his own interest. These two averments are basically absent in this case both in the pleadings as well as in the evidence.....”

(ii) “The finding of the Court below that the possession of the plaintiffs’ become adverse to the defendants between 1934-1936 is again an error apparent on the face of the record. As it is now clarified before me by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs’ claim in respect of the other land of the defendants is based on the subsequent sale deed dated 5.7.1936.

It is settled law that mere possession even if it is true for any number of years will not cloth the person in enjoyment with the title by adverse possession. As indicated supra, the important ingredients of adverse possession should have been satisfied.”

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion as it failed to take into consideration the principle that acknowledgement of the owner’s title was not sine qua non for claiming title by prescription. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Secy. of State v. Debendra Lal Khan [AIR 1934 PC 23] and State of West Bengal v. The Dalhousie Institute Society [AIR 1970 SC 1798].

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

CHARACTERIZING ADVERSE POSSESSION

5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessoror on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 571

IMPORTANT POINTMere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor is essential to prove adverse possession.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into adverse possession. Intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor is essential to prove adverse possession.