Principles Of Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Explains

Recently, while deciding the suit for declaration of title, the Supreme Court reiterated some important factors related to the principle of adverse possession. The Court recalled that the plea of adverse possession is a blend of fact and law. (Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India., (2004) 10 SCC 779) The person who claims adverse possession must show the following: “(a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” The Court added that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor. The Court explained that this is because the person seeking such possession is attempting to defeat the true owner's rights.Referring to Saroop Singh v. Banto, it was stated that as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. Further, the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession. However, at the same time, the Court emphasized that this principle depends on limitation as the right to access the Court expires after a stipulated period. The Court also stressed the importance of a limitation period while bringing an action to recover property in adverse possession. (Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan., (2009) 16 SCC 517) “Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.” To support this, the Court also relied on Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., (1971) 2 SCC 860. Therein, the Court extensively discussed the object of the Limitation Act. “The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asseting them in a court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep)” The Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol made these observations while, inter-alia, deciding whether the instant suit of declaration of title was barred by limitation. In view of this, the Court, while allowing the appeal, held that the suit is not maintainable because of the limitation. Case Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2014Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117Click here to read/ download the judgment

Principles Of Adverse Possession : Supreme Court Explains

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags