LI Network
Published on: February 15, 2024 at 11:28 IST
The Supreme Court shed light on crucial aspects of the principle of adverse possession while adjudicating a title declaration lawsuit.
The Court, emphasizing the composite nature of the plea of adverse possession as a mixture of fact and law, revisited key considerations outlined in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779.
According to the Court, an individual claiming adverse possession must substantiate the following elements: the date of entry into possession, the nature of possession, whether the opposing party was aware of the possession, the duration of the possession, and the openness and undisturbed nature of the possession.
The Court further underscored that those pleading adverse possession lack equitable considerations in their favor. Such individuals, by seeking possession, aim to override the rightful owner’s interests.
Citing Saroop Singh v. Banto, the Court highlighted that, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period begins not from the date the plaintiff’s ownership rights arise but from when the defendant’s possession turns adverse.
Exclusive physical possession and the animus possidendi (intent to possess) to claim ownership in exclusion of the true owner were identified as crucial factors in adverse possession cases.
However, the Court balanced this principle with the recognition that it is subject to limitations, as the right to access the court expires after a specified period.
Stressing the significance of limitation periods in actions to recover property in adverse possession, the Court referred to Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2009).
The Court elucidated, “Modern statutes of limitation operate to cut off one’s right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in adverse possession for a specified time, intending not only to protect the possessor but also to vest title in them.”
Building on this, the Court referred to Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. (1971) 2 SCC 860, where it extensively discussed the purpose of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for timely commencement of actions to ensure the availability of evidence and to discourage dormancy in asserting one’s rights.
The Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol made these observations while deciding whether a title declaration suit was barred by limitation. Consequently, the Court, in allowing the appeal, deemed the suit not maintainable due to the limitations imposed.
Case Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2014