Period of Adverse possession can only be counted from date of purchase of property and not from date of Mahazar: Supreme Court

Period of Adverse possession can only be counted from date of purchase of property and not from date of Mahazar: Supreme Court

Dismissing a suit for adverse possession filed against Bangalore Development Authority, the Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. N. Jayamma has reiterated that the period of the   adverse possession can only be counted from the date of purchase of the property and the period for which the original vendor held the property, and the date of Mahazar could not be counted.

Possession of the Suit property (Acquired by the Government) was handed over to the BDA on August 30, 1988. The original owner of the property, being in actual possession sold the property to the plaintiff who filed a suit in 2001 claiming adverse possession. Suit was decreed and the High Court upheld the appeal

Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Sikri and R.K. Agrawal allowing the appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority also held that sale in favour of the respondent in the year 1994 was void ab initio as the title had already been vested in the BDA and the original owner who had purportedly sold the property to the respondent was no longer owner thereof and had no right to sell the same.

The Court said that in M. Venkatesh & Ors. v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority  same issue has been directly and squarely dealt, said “It would further demonstrate that the findings of the court below that only paper possession was taken and actual possession was not taken also becomes meaningless as the manner of taking possession in the instant case was also identical. In addition, it is pertinent that the respondent herein, in para 10 of the plaint, had herself admitted that the officials of the BDA had come to the suit property on April 24, 2001 and demolished the existing structure. This act of the BDA would amply demonstrate that there was no unhindered, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land.”

Read the Judgment here.