latest update

Adverse possession - Means a hostile assertion, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner - The person who bases his title on adverse possession must show, by clear and unequivocal evidence, that the possession was hostile to the real owner and it amounted to the denial of his title to the property claimed - In deciding whether the acts alleged by the person constitute adverse possession, regard must be given to the animus of the person doing such acts, which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case - It is needless to observe that where the possession can be referred to a lawful title, it would not be considered to be adverse, the reason being that the person whose possession can be drawn to a lawful title, will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another’s title - Simply put, one who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of the other’s title, make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420

 

 

Adverse possession - Simple possession  - Permissive possession -  The non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time may affect the title of the owner under certain circumstances -  The acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner - There is a lot of difference between simple possession and adverse possession - Every possession is not adverse possession - The defendants will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession for howsoever long it may be – There is no absolute requirement to deem the mere possession of the suit property by the defendants to amount to adverse possession over the suit property - This would be in clear violation of the basic rights of the actual owner of the property. Held, Until the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to that of the real owner, the defendants continue in permissive possession of the property.  Only if the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to the interest of the real owner and the real owner fails to file the suit for possession within 12 years, as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, from the point of time the possession by the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs, the real owner loses his title over the property - The defendants are not only required to prove that they have been in possession of the suit property continuously and uninterruptedly, but also need to prove, by cogent and convincing evidence, that there is hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner - Important to assess whether such intention to dispossess is apparent to the actual owner or not -  The intention of the adverse user must be communicated atleast impliedly to the actual owner of the property - His hostile attitude should be open to the knowledge of the real owner -  It follows that the intention and possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice to the actual owner. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420

                                                                                                                            

 

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK  

Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp

 

FREE with

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/-punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502   

 

 

 

Adverse possession  - Test of  - The physical fact of exclusion, possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner, in exclusion to the actual owner, are the most important factors to prove adverse possession - A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour -  Since he is trying to take away the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse possession - Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e., 'without force, without secrecy, without permission' is an established test for finding adverse possession - ‘Animus possidendi’ is one of the ingredients of adverse possession, and unless the person possessing the property has the requisite hostile animus, the period of prescription does not commence - Virtually, the defendants are required to prove the possession to be adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and to adequately show that their possession is adverse to that of the true owner - It must start with wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420

  

 

Limitation Act , Articles 64 and 65 – Adverse possession - Once a party proves its title, the onus of proof would be on the other party to prove the claim of title by adverse possession -  Since the contesting defendants have raised a plea of adverse possession, the burden is on them to prove affirmatively that the bar of limitation prescribed under Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, viz., 12 years, is applicable in the matter to file a suit for possession of immovable property based on title - The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs - Thus, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to file a suit for possession within 12 years from when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420

 

 



 

 plr - supreme court e@journal

4/5 updates a week of the latest Supreme Court Judgements (Full Text with headnotes) delivered to your email and your mobile. Take our 1 month trial pack.

Rs. 1000/- per annum

WhatsApp / Email / App

 

https://www.plronline.in/subscribe/

 

 


Adverse Possession

  • Adverse Possession - A person in wrongful possession of suit property is definitely not entitled to an injunction - He cannot even be permitted to perfect his title by way of adverse possession - Where a person seeking permanent injunction is in possession of a property but his title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud or where the defendant asserts his title thereto, per force, such person will have to sue for declaration of title and the relief of injunction could only be consequential. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  •         Adverse Possession - A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession cannot be taken as conceding the title of the plaintiffs and there is no such proposition possible in the way Article 65 of the Limitation Act has been framed - If the possession is lost to a true owner and the person in possession establishes his title, the recovery of possession could be defeated.  (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse possession - As on the date of the suit, the respondents had not completed 12 years in possession of the suit property so as to entitle them to claim adverse possession against BDA, the true owner -  The argument that possession of the land was never taken also needs notice only to be rejected for it is settled that one of the modes of taking possession is by drawing a Panchnama which part has been done to perfection according to the evidence led by the defendant BDA. Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (dead) by Lrs. AIR 1996 SC 3377 and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1608, relied. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 801
  •         Adverse Possession - Between the plaintiff and the defendant trying to assert rights, it is the defendants' stand which is more advantageous, for, the plaintiff suing for ejectment of a property which the adversary occupied could succeed only on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defendant.  (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Both the parties to the lis are neighbours and the appellants have been cultivating the land to their knowledge, i.e., their possession has been open, hostile inasmuch as that they have raised the construction of the house and the plaintiffs did not raise any eye-brow or much less objected to the same - The stray entry in few jamabandies, would not take away the status of appellants as Malkana Haq - Revenue entries, in my view, reflect the fulfillment of the aforementioned ingredients and lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellants have become owners by efflux of time.  (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Declaration cannot be sought by a plaintiff to the effect that the adverse possession has matured into ownership. (179) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Grandfather of the plaintiff has given the land in dispute to the father of defendant - Which clearly indicates that father of the defendant came into possession of the suit land with the permission of the grandfather of the plaintiff - Thus, it is nothing more than the permissive possession of the defendants - Their father came into permissive possession of the suit property, thus they cannot claim themselves to be in adverse possession of the suit property.  (183) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - No limitation prescribed for seeking possession on the basis of title and further when the said possession has been found to be of permissive nature. (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Once the plea of adverse possession has been set up by the plaintiffs, it pre-supposes the ownership of the defendants over the suit land - Once the suit itself is not maintainable, in that eventuality, plaintiffs cannot be allowed to seek over declaration vis-a-vis gift deed and sale deed subsequently - Counter-claim has been rightly allowed by the Courts below as the possession of the plaintiffs is proved to be illegal and that of trespasser on the suit land. (182) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Plaintiff cannot claim adverse possession being a weapon of defence - Even otherwise, material particulars of adverse possession viz. date of commencement of possession, nature of possession, factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, length of possession, whether possession was open and hostile and to the very knowledge of the true owner have to be proved - Plea of adverse possession preceeds title in favour of opposite party - Since suit on the basis of adverse possession does not lie therefore, plaintiff cannot be held to be owner on the basis of adverse possession.(181) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law rather it is a blended question of fact and law and the person who is claiming adverse possession must show firstly that on what date he came into possession; secondly what was the nature of his possession; thirdly whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; fourthly how long his possession has continued; and fifthly his possession was open, undisturbed, hostile to the very knowledge of the opposite party.      (180) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - Suit for declaration claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable as the plea of adverse possession is available only as a defence. (183) P.L.R.
  •         Adverse Possession - The licence is personal between the grantor-licensor and the Grantee licensee - It is not transferable, much less heritable right - The permissive possession extinguished on the demise of licencee - Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882) S. 52.  (182) P.L.R.
  • Adverse Possession - Defendant has raised a plea of adverse possession - This shows that he admits the fact that ownership of suit land was taken out of the purview of the jointness and it was specifically given to the plaintiff in this case - Otherwise also the defendant himself has admitted in cross- examination that he is cultivating the land on behalf of his mother only. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Adverse Possession – No evidence was lead with regard to the plea of adverse possession – Appellate Court has committed illegality and abdication in not noticing the fact that once the defendants had set up a plea for adverse possession, the identity of the encroached property, which was in alleged possession, was not in dispute - Once the defendants failed to prove the plea of adverse possession, it tantamounts to admitting the ownership of the plaintiffs. (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Adverse Possession – There cannot be any plea of adverse possession against the defendants - Once a tenant always a tenant unless that status is tampered by another legal process.  . (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
  • Adverse possession - Means a hostile assertion, i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner - The person who bases his title on adverse possession must show, by clear and unequivocal evidence, that the possession was hostile to the real owner and it amounted to the denial of his title to the property claimed - In deciding whether the acts alleged by the person constitute adverse possession, regard must be given to the animus of the person doing such acts, which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of each case - It is needless to observe that where the possession can be referred to a lawful title, it would not be considered to be adverse, the reason being that the person whose possession can be drawn to a lawful title, will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another’s title - Simply put, one who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of the other’s title, make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420
  • Adverse possession - Simple possession  - Permissive possession -  The non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time may affect the title of the owner under certain circumstances -  The acquisition of title by adverse possession springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner - There is a lot of difference between simple possession and adverse possession - Every possession is not adverse possession - The defendants will not acquire adverse possession by simply remaining in permissive possession for howsoever long it may be – There is no absolute requirement to deem the mere possession of the suit property by the defendants to amount to adverse possession over the suit property - This would be in clear violation of the basic rights of the actual owner of the property. Held, Until the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to that of the real owner, the defendants continue in permissive possession of the property.  Only if the defendants’ possession becomes adverse to the interest of the real owner and the real owner fails to file the suit for possession within 12 years, as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, from the point of time the possession by the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs, the real owner loses his title over the property - The defendants are not only required to prove that they have been in possession of the suit property continuously and uninterruptedly, but also need to prove, by cogent and convincing evidence, that there is hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of the real owner - Important to assess whether such intention to dispossess is apparent to the actual owner or not -  The intention of the adverse user must be communicated atleast impliedly to the actual owner of the property - His hostile attitude should be open to the knowledge of the real owner -  It follows that the intention and possession of the adverse possessor must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice to the actual owner. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420 
  • Adverse possession  - Test of  - The physical fact of exclusion, possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner, in exclusion to the actual owner, are the most important factors to prove adverse possession - A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour -  Since he is trying to take away the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse possession - Nec vi, nec clam, nec precario i.e., 'without force, without secrecy, without permission' is an established test for finding adverse possession - ‘Animus possidendi’ is one of the ingredients of adverse possession, and unless the person possessing the property has the requisite hostile animus, the period of prescription does not commence - Virtually, the defendants are required to prove the possession to be adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and to adequately show that their possession is adverse to that of the true owner - It must start with wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420
  • Limitation Act , Articles 64 and 65 – Adverse possession - Once a party proves its title, the onus of proof would be on the other party to prove the claim of title by adverse possession -  Since the contesting defendants have raised a plea of adverse possession, the burden is on them to prove affirmatively that the bar of limitation prescribed under Article 65 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, viz., 12 years, is applicable in the matter to file a suit for possession of immovable property based on title - The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs - Thus, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to file a suit for possession within 12 years from when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. (2018)2 SCeJ 1420
  •