SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 840

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) Through Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
O.V. Narasimha Setty (D) By Lrs. & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6111 of 2009
With
Nagar Council Sirhind – Appellant
Versus
Bhagat Ram & ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12267 of 2018 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) no.2760 of 2011)
And
M.E. Munirajegowda & ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri Uthanallappa @ Uthanalliga Since deceased by his Lrs. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10332 of 2018 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No.10343 of 2016)
Decided on : 08-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Arun K. Sinha, Sunil Sinha, Sinha S.N., Nayan Dubey, S. Verma, Joseph Aristotle, Priya Aristotle, Rijut Sarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):P.N. Puri, Reeta Dewan Puri, Seema Chettri, D. Bharat Kumar, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Aman Shukla, Abhijit Sengupta, A.N. Arora, Abhijit Sengupta, Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Adverse Possession – Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of Limitation Act.

Headnote:

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Adverse Possession – Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of Limitation Act and there is no bar under Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff – 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 possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by outgoing person/owner. (Para 1)

       Facts of the Case:

       Instant appeals involve a preliminary issue as to whether plaintiff can take plea of adverse possession in view of interpretation of Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963.

       Findings of Court:

       Preliminary issue involved in the instant appeals is wholly covered by the above decision. In view of the answer, let the matters be placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate Bench.

       Result : Appeals allowed.

ORDER :

1. The instant appeals involve a preliminary issue as to whether plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession in view of the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014) has decided the similar issue on 7th August, 2019, by holding as under:

“56. Possession is the root of title and is right like the property. As ownership is also of different kinds of viz. sole ownership, contingent ownership, corporeal ownership, and legal equitable ownership. Limited ownership or limited right to property may be enjoyed by a holder. What can be prescribable against is limited to the rights of the holder. Possession confers enforceable right under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It has to be looked into what kind of possession is enjoyed viz. de facto i.e., actual, ‘de jure possession’, constructive possession, concurrent possession over a small portion of the property. In case the owner is in symbolic possession, there is no dispossession, there can be formal, exclusive or joint possession. The joint possessor/coowner possession is not presumed to be adverse. Personal law also plays a role to construe nature of possession.

57. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to coexist at the same time, namely, necvi i.e. adequate in continuity, necclam i.e., adequate in publicity and necprecario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser’s long possession is not synonym with adverse possession. Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time. Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and the large concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession.

58. Adverse possession is heritable and there can be tacking of adverse possession by two or more persons as the right is transmissible one. In our opinion, it confers a perfected right which cannot be defeated on reentry except as provided in Article 65 itself. Tacking is based on the fulfillment of certain conditions, tacking maybe by possession by the purchaser, legatee or assignee, etc. so as to constitute continuity of possession, that person must be claiming through whom it is sought to be tacked, and would depend on the identity of the same property under the same right. Two distinct trespassers cannot tack their possession to constitute conferral of right by adverse possession for the prescribed period.

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 pos




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top