Deity's Status As 'Perpetual Minor' Doesn't Bar Adverse Possession Claims Over Its Property: Orissa High Court

While deciding a second appeal against rejection of a claim of adverse possession, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“In M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, the Constitution Bench expressly rejected the contention that a deity stands exempted from limitation merely because it is described as a perpetual minor. The Court explained that the analogy cannot be extended to create an exemption which the law of limitation does not provide. The judgment highlighted the need for human agency to represent the deity does not place its property beyond the operation of limitation.”

The suit land belongs to the deity – Maa Sureswari Devi of Sonepur Town. The father of the plaintiff-appellant was in possession of the suit land for more than fifty years, and after his death, the appellant had been continuing in possession thereof.

Therefore, by virtue of such long and continuous possession, he claimed to have acquired a right of occupancy over the suit land. During the settlement operation, he requested the authority to settle the suit land in his favour, but the same was refused. Consequently, he instituted the suit.

Both the Courts below concurrently held that the deity, being a perpetual minor, no claim for adverse possession can be made against her property. Further, they held that an annual lease-holder of the land cannot claim adverse possession over the properties, since he is in possession thereof merely on an annual lease basis. Moreover, the said possession being a permissive possession, no adverse possession claim can be made.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this second appeal, which was admitted by formulating the substantial question as to whether the evidence is sufficient enough to prove the adverse possession of the appellants over the suit land, and whether the law of adverse possession can be made applicable to the properties of a deity.

Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in M. Siddiq (supra), the Bench categorically found the concurrent declaration of law by both the Courts below as erroneous. The Court made it clear that no exemption can be made in favour of a deity which the law of limitation does not provide. It further held that the need for human agency to represent the deity does not put its property beyond the operation of limitation.

However, the error regarding perpetual minority did not per se convinced the Court to reverse the concurrent decrees. It noted that the Courts below also rejected the claim on the independent ground that the occupation disclosed by the receipts originated in annual lease arrangements and that acquisition of title by adverse possession had not been established.

Justice Panigrahi opined that the existence of receipts in the names of family members of the appellant does not automatically establish an independent right. He added–

“Even assuming that the plaintiff continued the cultivation previously undertaken by his father, the claim to adverse possession does not follow. Continuity of cultivation is not equivalent to continuity of hostile possession. The period during which the family occupied the land under annual arrangements cannot be counted as adverse merely because the occupation is said to have extended over several decades. A subsequent change in the character of possession, followed by its continuance for the requisite period, remained necessary.”

Accordingly, the Court answered the substantial question by holding the deity not exempted from the claim of adverse possession, but simultaneously dismissed the appeal on the ground that mere permissive possession by the appellant for a long period of time does not entitle him to its title, when hostile entry could not be proved.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate along with associates; Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate for the Endowment

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 128