Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Manjit Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7764 OF 2014
WITH
RADHAKRISHNA REDDY (D) THROUGH LRS. – PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
G. AYYAVOO & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.8332-8333 OF 2014
Decided On : 07-08-2019
(a) Interpretation of statute - Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963 - Expression in column 3, “the limitation of 12 years runs from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” - Cannot be read as a bar to perfection of title by way of adverse possession whether a person is suing as the plaintiff or being sued as a defendant - No bar under Article 65 or any of the provisions of the Act as against a plaintiff who has perfected his title by virtue of adverse possession to sue to evict a person or to protect his possession. (Para 46, 61)
(b) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse possession - Not defined - No bar on suing on basis of adverse possession - Provision only deals with limitation to sue and extinguishment of rights. (Para 48)
(c) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 64 - Suit can be filed on basis of possessory title - Law never intends a person who has perfected title to be deprived of filing suit under Article 65 to recover possession and to render him remediless. (Para 49)
(d) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Limitation of 12 years - Once right is extinguished, another person acquires prescriptive right - Such right cannot be defeated by reentry by the owner or subsequent acknowledgment of his rights - Suit can be filed by a person whose possessory right is sought to be defeated - The right ripened by prescription by adverse possession is absolute and on dispossession, the person can sue based on such ‘title'. (Para 50, 53, 59)
(e) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Expression “title” - Would include the title acquired by a person by way of adverse possession. (Para 54)
(f) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 and 27 - Article 27 providing for extinguishment of right and title after the limitation fixed to institute a suit for possession of any property - Property includes corporeal or incorporeal property, and Article 65 deals with immovable property. (Para 55)
(g) Property law - Possession - Root of title - Ownership - Possession confers enforceable right u/s 6, Specific Relief Act - kinds of ownership : sole ownership, contingent ownership, corporeal ownership, and legal equitable ownership - Limited ownership or limited right to property may be enjoyed by a holder - Possession may be ‘de facto’ i.e., actual, ‘de jure possession’, constructive and concurrent over a small portion of the property - Joint or co-owner possession is not adverse possession.(Para 56)
(h) Property law - Adverse possession - Classic requirements - 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 - However, adverse title has to be pleaded - Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title required - Trespasser, encroacher and possessor - Distinction. (Para 57, 60)
(i) Property law - Adverse possession : heritable and transmissible. (Para 58)
Facts of the case:
The question of law involved in the present matters is whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession or for restoration of possession in case of illegal dispossession by a defendant whose title has been extinguished by virtue of the plaintiff remaining in the adverse possession or in case of dispossession by some other person? In other words, whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. Whether he is remediless in such a case? In case a person has perfected his title based on adverse possession and property is sold by the owner after the extinguishment of his title, what is the remedy of a person to avoid sale and interference in possession or for its restoration in case of dispossession?
Finding of the Court:
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. 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.
Result: Reference answered in affirmative.
The legal document discusses the doctrine of adverse possession and its implications under the Limitation Act, 1963. A key point is that once a person has possessed property adversely for a period of 12 years, their right to eject the previous owner is extinguished, and they acquire a right, title, and interest equivalent to that of the outgoing owner (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . This possessory right can be used both defensively and offensively—meaning it can serve as a shield against eviction or as a sword to file a suit for recovery of possession (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that adverse possession confers a title that is absolute and transmissible, capable of being inherited and transferred, and once acquired, it cannot be defeated by reentry or subsequent acknowledgment of the owner’s rights (!) (!) (!) (!) . The possession must be peaceful, continuous, open, hostile, and under a claim of right, with the intention (animus possidendi) to possess as an owner (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Importantly, the document clarifies that a suit based on adverse possession can be filed either by the person claiming ownership or by a person who has perfected their title through adverse possession, and there is no legal bar to such suits under the Limitation Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document emphasizes that adverse possession is a negative concept that results in the extinguishment of the original owner’s title, leaving the adverse possessor with a good and absolute title that is enforceable both at law and in equity (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The period of possession, along with the requisite hostile intent and open, continuous, and peaceful conduct, are essential elements to establish such a title (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Lastly, the law acknowledges that the concept of adverse possession, while historically rooted and utilitarian, can have harsh consequences, especially concerning properties dedicated to public use. Therefore, some jurisdictions suggest that statutes should explicitly prohibit acquiring rights through adverse possession over such properties to prevent unjust outcomes (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The question of law involved in the present matters is quite significant. Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”) for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession or for restoration of possession in case of illegal dispossession by a defendant whose title has been extinguished by virtue of the plaintiff remaining in the adverse possession or in case of dispossession by some other person? In other words, whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. Whether he is remediless in such a case? In case a person has perfected his title based on adverse possession and property is sold by the owner after the extinguishment of his title, what is the remedy of a person to avoid sale and interference in possession or for its restoration in case of dispossession?
2. Historically, adverse possession is a pretty old concept of law. It is useful but often criticised concept on the ground that it protects and confers rights upon wrongdoers. The concept of adverse possession appeared in the Code of Hammurabi approximately 2000 years before Christ era. Law 30 contained a provision “If a chieftain or a man leaves his house, garden, and field …. and someone else takes possession of his house, garden and field and uses it for three years; if the first owner returns and claims his house, garden, and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it.” However, there was an exception to the aforesaid rule: for a soldier captured or killed in battle and the case of the juvenile son of the owner. In Roman times, attached to the land, a kind of spirit that was nurtured by the possessor. Possessor or user of the land was considered to have a greater “ownership” of the land than the titled owner. We inherited the Common Law concept, being a part of the erstwhile British colony. William in 1066 consolidated ownership of land under the Crown. The Statute of Westminster came in 1275 when land records were very often scarce and literacy was rare, the best evidence of ownership was possession. In 1639, the Statute of Limitation fixed the period for recovery of possession at 20 years. A line of thought was also evolved that the person who possesses the land and produces something of ultimate benefit to the society, must hold the best title to the land. Revenue laws relating to land have been enacted in the spirit to confer the title on the actual tiller of the land. The Statute of Wills in 1540 allowed lands to be passed down to heirs. The Statute of Tenures enacted in 1660 ended the feudal system and created the concept of the title. The adverse possession remained as a part of the law and continue to exist. The concept of adverse possession has a root in the aspect that it awards ownership of land to the person who makes the best or highest use of the land. The land, which is being used is more valuable than idle land, is the concept of utilitarianism. The concept thus, allows the society as a whole to benefit from the land being held adversely but allows a sufficient period for the “true owner” to recover the land. The adverse possession statutes permit rapid development of “wild” lands with the weak or indeterminate title. It helps in the Doctrine of Administration also as it can be an effective and efficient way to remove or cure clouds of title which with memories grow dim and evidence becomes unclear. The possessor who ma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
