Adverse possession requires clear, continuous, and hostile possession, which must be proven with specific evidence; mere long-term possession does not confer ownership.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - First appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Plaintiffs claimed ownership by adverse possession over government land - Court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate continuous and hostile possession, thus not entitled to relief - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 1, 19, 36)

(B) Adverse Possession - Requirements - Continuous, open, and hostile possession must be established with clear evidence - Mere long possession does not confer title - Burden of proof lies on the claimant. (Paras 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed ownership of 4 acres of government land based on adverse possession, asserting uninterrupted possession for over 40 years, which was contested by the government. The Trial Court dismissed their suit, leading to the appeal.

Findings of Court:
Plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession; their application for regularization indicated acknowledgment of unauthorized occupation.

Issues: Whether plaintiffs proved ownership by adverse possession and if the Trial Court's dismissal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that adverse possession requires clear evidence of continuous and hostile possession, which the plaintiffs failed to provide.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.1468/2007 by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore²2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’, whereunder the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property bearing Sy.No.150 measuring a total extent of 6 acres, 18 guntas situated at Shivakote, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk is a gomal land and the same was granted under EKSAL to one Sri Lingappa in the year 1944-45 and the lease was renewed during the year 1945-46 and 1946-47 under the Grow More Food Scheme. That the suit property is an extent of 4 acres from the larger extent of 6 acres, 18 guntas in the said Sy.No.150 of Shivakote village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk³3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that since the said Lingappa was not a resident of the said village, he leased the said land to Sri Muniyappa @ Haalina Muniyappa, who is the father of the plaintiffs and that the father of the plaintiffs was in uninterrupted possession over the entire extent of 6 acres, 18 guntas in said Sy.No.150. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that on 19.3.1949 the original grantee namely, Lingappa entered into an Agreement of Sale with the father of the plaintiffs agreeing to sell the total extent of 6 acres, 18 guntas after making katha in his name and received a sum of `585/- as total sale consideration. That the grant was not confirmed or renewed after 1946-47 in favour of Lingappa.

That a Mahazar was conducted on 19.5.1952 and 11.6.1952 by the Revenue Inspector and it was found that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 6 acres, 18 guntas in Sy.No.150. The father of the plaintiffs applied for grant of the said 6 acres, 18 guntas of land in his name and the Tahsildar recommended for grant at an upset price of `50/- per acre. That one Sri Narayanappa and a few others also applied for grant in the said survey number. That it was recommended for disposal of the land in a public auction. However, the Revenue Commissioner, vide Official Memorandum No.C4/ADR 291/1953-54, dated 6.5.1954 granted the land under the Military Concession Rules to Sri Narayana Rao Jadhav (Yadav). Being aggrieved, appeals were filed before the State Government by the father of the plaintiffs and others. Vide order dated 5.4.1957 passed in Case No.335 and 335A/55-56 (R. BLR), the Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal in accordance with Rule 41(a) & (b) of the Land Revenue Rules, consequent to which, the Deputy Commissioner in Revenue Misc.No.132/1956-57, vide order dated 29.10.1957 granted 2 acres, 18 guntas of land to the father of the plaintiff at `50/- per acre and the remaining 4 acres of land i.e., the suit property was granted to four persons namely, Sri Narayanappa, Sri Guruva Bovi, Sri Munithimma and Sri Arasappa at one acre each with a direction that the said four grantees should pay proper compensation charges to Sri Muniyappa i.e., the father of the plaintiffs for improvements effected and that Sri Narayana Rao Jadhav (Yadav) should select land elsewhere. Being aggrieved, Muniyappa, the father of the plaintiffs, Lingappa and Narayana Rao Jadhav (Yadav) preferred appeals before the Divisional Commissioner in RA Nos.20, 48 and 51 of 1957-58. Vide order dated 19.5.1958, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeals of Muniyappa and Lingappa and allowed the appeal of Sri Narayana Rao Jadhav (Yadav) and granted the land to him under the Milit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35552

Adverse possession requires clear, continuous, and hostile possession, which must be proven with specific evidence; mere long-term possession does not confer ownership.

Cases Referred (1)