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