Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for proving title by adverse possession starts from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff gains ownership. This decision arose in a case where a defendant, claiming adverse possession since 1968, argued that a 1986 dispossession suit was time-barred.  

• The Court clarified that the focus should be on the nature of possession rather than the ownership date. 
• Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held in the matter of Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. 

What was the Background of Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. ? 

• The original plaintiff filed a civil suit in 1986 for recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed from 1968. 
• The defendants contested the suit, claiming the land was joint family property purchased in 1963 in the name of a relative.  
  • They alleged an oral partition in 1976 allotted this land to them. 
• The defendants also claimed they had been in adverse possession of the land since 1968, and that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after 12 years. 
• The trial court dismissed the suit, holding the land was joint family property and the suit was time-barred. 
• On appeal, the first appellate court overturned the finding that it was joint family property, but still dismissed the suit as time barred. 
• The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, which reversed the lower courts and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favor. 
• The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's judgment. 
• Key issues before the Supreme Court were:  
  • Whether the defendants had established adverse possession 
  • The correct starting point for calculating the limitation period 
  • Whether the defendants' earlier admission of being lessees affected their claim of adverse possession 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession commences from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse, not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership. 
• The Court held that once the plaintiff proves their title over the suit property, it is incumbent upon the defendant claiming adverse possession to establish that they perfected title through adverse possession. 
• The Court states that as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises for the plaintiff, but from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. 
• The Court observed that when the defendant was holding possession of the suit property as a lessee, they could not claim adverse possession over the property, as the defendant's possession could only be termed as 'permissive possession'. 
• The Court reiterated that tenants or lessees cannot claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor, as the nature of their possession is permissive. 
• The Court observed that the defendants failed to establish the time from which their possession was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff, which must be open and continuous for the prescriptive period. 
• The Court concluded that the requirements to constitute adverse possession were not established by the defendants in this case. 

What is Adverse Possession? 

• Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to acquire title to real property by continuously occupying it without the owner's permission for a statutorily defined period. 
• The concept is primarily governed by the Limitation Act of 1963, which sets the statutory period as 12 years for private property and 30 years for government-owned land. 
• The 22nd Law Commission's recent report provides a thorough examination of adverse possession and its implications in property law and recommended that no changes are necessary in the existing provisions under the Limitation Act of 1963. 
  • The concept of adverse possession stems from the idea that land must not be left vacant but instead, be put to judicious use. 
• The possession must be "adverse" to the true owner's rights, meaning the possessor must occupy the property without the owner's consent and in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights. 
• If all elements are met, the original owner's right to reclaim the property is extinguished, and the adverse possessor gains legal title. 
• The doctrine serves to promote productive use of land, penalize negligent landowners, and provide certainty in property ownership after extended periods. 
• Courts have consistently held that adverse possession cannot be claimed against property held by the government for public purposes, and the burden of proving all elements lies with the person claiming adverse possession. 
• If the original owner loses rights due to adverse possession, the property must transfer to the person who has been in possession and has interest in it. 

What are the Essential Elements of Adverse Possession ? 

• Actual:  
  • Physical occupation or use of the property as a true owner would. 
• Open:  
  • Visible and apparent possession, not hidden or secretive. 
• Notorious:  
  • Widely known in the community, such that others would recognize the trespasser as the apparent owner. 
• Hostile:  
  • Possession without the true owner's permission, infringing on their rights. 
• Exclusive:  
  • Sole control by the trespasser, excluding the true owner and others. 
• Continuous: 
  •  Uninterrupted possession for the full statutory period (e.g., 12 years for private land, 30 years for government land). 

What are the Important Provisions Related to Adverse Possession? 

• Article 65, Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963:  
  • Imposes a 12-year limitation period for suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. 
• Section 27 of the Limitation Act:  
  • Acts as an exception to the principle of adverse possession. 
  • If a person fails to file a suit for recovery of possession within the specified time period, their right to recover possession or ownership of the property is extinguished. 
• Burden of Proof:  
  • The Limitation Act, 1963 shifted the burden of proof to the claimant of adverse possession. 
  • The person claiming title through adverse possession must prove their claim. 
• Acquisition of Ownership:  
  • Under the Limitation Act, 1963:  
  • For private land: Possession for over 12 years can lead to ownership. 
  • For government land: Possession for over 30 years can lead to ownership. 
• Historical Context:  
  • Article 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (predecessor to the 1963 Act) required the petitioner to prove actual ownership for a continuous period of 12 years. 

What are Landmark Judgments on Adverse Possession? 

• Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004):  
  • Established that a proprietor is considered in control of property as long as there's no interruption. 
  • Non-use of property by the owner for a long time doesn't affect title. 
  • However, if someone else claims rights over the property and the owner fails to take legal action for years, the situation can change. 
• Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati:  
  • Defined adverse possession as when a person without right enters into possession of another's property, continues possession claiming title, and after 12 years acquires title due to inaction of the real owner. 
• Mallikarjunaiah v. Nanjaiah:  
  • Clarified that mere continuous possession is not enough for adverse possession. 
  • Possession must be open, hostile, exclusive, and with assertion of ownership rights to the knowledge of the true owner.