1. “Adverse possession” is a topic that has glutted the law journals over passage of time. The decisions on it being innumerable, as a necessary sequel, varying opinions have found its place. This reference has arisen taking note of discordant notes between George v. Balakrishnan (2014(4) KLT 788) and Kerala State Represented by the Chief Secretary, Trivandrum and Others v. Brijit and Others (2018(2) KHC 521).

2. The questions posed in the reference are:

1. To sustain a plea of adverse possession, is it necessary that identity of the true owner should be known to the person in possession; should the adverse nature of possession be specifically put to his notice?

2. Could alternate pleas of title and adverse possession be urged?

3. The classical requirement of adverse possession is “nec vi, nec clam and nec precario” which means without violence, without stealth and without permission. Uninterrupted possession for the statutory period satisfying all the three ingredients stated above, amounts to adverse possession. To constitute adverse possession, the possession must be, as the terms implied, “adverse”, in derogation, of the rights of the true owner. Does it mean that the person in possession must be aware as to the identity of the true owner and should bring to his notice that the possession is in denial of his title. To call possession “adverse”, what is material is the animus. There has to be a hostile animus. The intention to exclude the whole world from challenging a person's possession necessarily implies possession with hostile animus, to exclude all others including the rightful owner. The same would be sufficient to constitute adverse possession. In view of the judgment by a three judge's bench of the Apex Court in Kshitish Chandra Bose v Commissioner of Ranchi (AIR 1981 SC 707), we deem it unnecessary to refer to various other judgments on the issue. The three judge's bench held thus :

“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.”

4. In that case the plaintiff therein claimed title under a third party. He raised an alternate plea of adverse possession. The plea was accepted. Possessing property with hostile animus to exclude all, is sufficient enough to constitute adverse possession. It is not necessary that the true owner must be identified and specifically put on notice. It would suffice if any. The Point is answered accordingly.

5. Coming to plea of title and adverse possession, it is to be noticed that alternate pleas are essentially different from inconsistent pleas. Inconsistent pleas do not go together. A plea of title and adverse possession would, in certain the possession is nec clam ie:, open and without stealth or secrecy, sufficient enough to bring it to the notice of claimants, if any. The point is answered accordingly. situations partake the character of alternate pleas, and in certain circumstances, of inconsistent pleas. When the defendant claims a derivative title under the plaintiff, his auxiliary claim for adverse possession against the plaintiff militates against each other and are inconsistent pleas. However, in a case where the defendant traces title under a third party and resists the suit on the strength of the said title and as an alternative, raise a plea of adverse possession against the plaintiff, it is a case of alternative plea. The latter is permissible. In L.N.Aswathama and Another v. P.Prakash (2009(13) SCC 229) the Apex Court held:

“As the defendant therein admitted that he came into possession lawfully under an agreement of sale and continue to remain in such possession, there was no adverse possession. This case is different, as the defendant did not contend that he entered possession under or through the plaintiffs. ..... When a person is in possession ascertaining to be the owner, even if he fails to establ