1. Suit for possession based on title acquired via public auction — Claim of unauthorized possession by defendants. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Shri Uttam Chand (D) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Nathu Ram (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 16321 of 2011)
Decided On : 15-01-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :K. Sarada Devi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Gagan Gupta, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :K. Sarada Devi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Gagan Gupta, Advocate
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
For adverse possession ripening into title requires adequate continuity, adequate publicity and adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge.
For adverse possession ripening into title requires adequate continuity, adequate publicity and adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge.
Subject
Property Law - Adverse Possession
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Adverse possession - Upon admitting title of the true owner only claim of adverse possession can be asserted - If defendants are not sure who the true owner is, the question of them being in hostile possession as well as of denying the title of the true owner does not arise. (Para 11)
(b) Adverse possession - Plaintiff purchasing suit property in public auction from Managing Officer - Defendants denying title not only of plaintiff but also that of Managing Officer - Claiming adverse possession only on basis of long possession, since 1963 - Mere long possession, not adverse to true owner, will not ripe into title. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4th January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17th February, 1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
The defendants-respondents in the written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property.
The suit was dismissed by trial court.
The First Appellate Court decreed the suit.
The High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
Mere long possession will not into title.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - Mere long possession, without hostility to the true owner, does not ripen into title; required elements include hostility (animus possidendi) and denial of the true owner's title (!) (!) (!) - Adverse possession requires three classical ingredients: adequate continuity, adequacy of publicity, and adverse to a competitor in denial of title, with animus possidendi being crucial; possession must be nec vi nec clam nec precario (!) (!) (!) - A plea of adverse possession must be based on clear pleadings and proven with evidence showing possession, knowledge of the true owner, duration, and open/undisturbed nature; possession referred to lawful title or on behalf of another cannot constitute adverse possession (!) (!) (!) - The Constitution Bench and cited judgments reiterate that adverse possession is founded on acceptance that ownership vests in another and requires hostile possession; mere continuous possession without hostility cannot defeat title (!) (!) (!)
What is the criteria for adverse possession to ripen into title and whether long possession alone satisfies the requirements?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff contends possession was not adverse due to defendants' denial of title; defendants argue long-term open possession constitutes adverse possession. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Adverse possession requires animus possidendi and hostile possession in denial of the true owner's title, which must be clearly pleaded and proved. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. A plea of adverse possession necessitates the acceptance that ownership vests in another, against whom the claimant asserts possession adverse to that title. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Suit for possession decreed in favor of the plaintiff. (Para 16 )
6. What are the essential requirements for establishing adverse possession?
Adverse possession requires possession that is nec vi (continuous), nec clam (public), and nec precario (hostile/in denial of the true owner's title). The claimant must prove the date, nature, and duration of possession, and that it was open and undisturbed to the knowledge of the true owner. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Does mere long-term possession or payment of taxes suffice to claim adverse possession?
No, mere possession for several years or the production of tax receipts is insufficient. Possession only ripens into title if it is hostile and specifically denies the title of the true owner. (Para 6 , 12 )
8. Can a party claim adverse possession if they deny the true ownership of the plaintiff?
A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership vests in another. If a claimant denies the plaintiff's title entirely and asserts their own, they are not asserting possession adverse to the plaintiff's acknowledged title. (Para 15 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. Plaintiff is in appeal before this Court aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Delhi on 18th February, 2011 whereby, the defendants second appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff for possession on the basis of title was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the basis of purchase of suit property from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March, 1964. The certificate of sale was issued thereafter on 4th January, 1965. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 17th February, 1979 alleging the defendants to be in an unauthorised possession of the suit property and who have refused to vacate the same.
3. The defendants in the written statement denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the property. The defendants asserted that their house existed on the property in question for more than the last two centuries. The grandfather of the defendants was said to be in possession of the property as owner, thereafter their father one Tara Chand and now all the defendants are in possession of the property as owners. It was denied that the property was ever vested with the Managing Officer and, therefore, it was claimed that the Managing Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to auction the property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has no interest, right or title in the property.
4. Parties went to trial on the following issues:
“1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee & Jurisdiction?
2. Whether the suit is time barred?
3. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit?
4. Whether the defendants become owner by adverse possession of the property in suit?
5. Whether the defendants are in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute?
6. Relief.”
5. Before the learned trial court, the plaintiff examined PW-4 Chander Bhan, Lower Division Clerk from the Land and Building Department who has proved that the sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff on 15th January, 1965. The learned trial court recorded the finding on the basis of testimonies of Din Dayal Khanna (PW-3), Chander Bhan (PW-4) and S.B. Lal (PW-5) that the property is situated in Khasra No. 9 and has been sold through auction. The learned trial court also considered the testimonies of Bhagwan Dass (DW-1) and Ranjit (DW-2), both sons of the defendant, that the plaintiff is the owner of the property purchased through Ex.B4/1 in an auction from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation. Thus, Issue No. 3 was held in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was found to be owner of the property. But Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff and consequently the suit was dismissed but with a direction to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of court fee of Rs. 2000/-within one month in view of the finding recorded on Issue No. 1.
6. In the first appeal by the plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court on Issue Nos. 1 and 3 that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in question. However, in respect of Issue No. 2 as to whether the suit is time barred, the learned First Appellate Court returned a finding that the suit is within time as the same was filed on February 17, 1979 i.e. before the completion of 12 years. Issue No. 2 was decided against the defendants holding that the findings recorded by the trial court that the limitation starts from the date of purchase of the suit property is not sustainable. The right of the respondents over the property was challenged before the completion of 12 years, therefore, the suit filed in February, 1979 is within period of limitation. Under issue No. 4, the findings recorded were that the mere possession of land, however long it may be, would not ripe into possessory title unless the possessor has animus possidendi to hold the la
