Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that the plea of adverse possession can be used not only as shield by the defendant but also as sword by the plaintiff 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge consisting of Justice MR Shah, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Arun Mishra.  

Facts

• Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) provides that the period of limitation for filing a suit for possession of immovable property is 12 years.  
• The time from which this period begins to run is when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. 
• 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 Court in this case was concerned with only a question of law. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether a person claiming title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of LA for declaration of title and for permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession? 

Observation 

• The concept of adverse possession is a common law concept. 
• Law of limitation nowhere defines adverse possession and also does not contain a provision that plaintiff cannot sue on the basis of adverse possession. 
• The Court observed that the law never intended that a person who has perfected his title by virtue of Article 65 be deprived of his right to file the suit and be rendered remediless.  
• It was further observed that the law of adverse possession restricts the right of the owner to recover possession before the period of limitation for the extinction of his rights expires.  
• The Court interpreted Article 65 as follows: 
  • In Article 65 in the opening part a suit “for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title” has been used. 
  • Expression “title” would include the title acquired by the plaintiff by way of adverse possession. 
• Further, it has been held in a catena of judgments that title is perfected by adverse possession. 
• The Court rejected the argument that there is no conferral of right by adverse possession.  
• Further, the Court also laid down three classic requirements for adverse possession: 
  • Nec- vi i.e. adequate in continuity 
  • Nec- clam i.e. adequate in publicity 
  • Nec- precario i.e. adverse to a competitor 
• However, long possession by trespasser is not synonymous with adverse possession. 
• The Court laid down the following important points: 
  • A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law. 
  • Once the period of 12 years is over even the right of the owner to eject the person expires and the possessory owner acquires the right, title and interest in the property. 
  • Thus, the Court held that the plea of adverse possession can be used not only as shield by the defendant but also as sword by the plaintiff within the limits of Article 65 of LA. 
• Thus, the Court held that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of LA and there is no bar under the LA to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.

Conclusion

• This is a landmark judgment dealing with the plea of adverse possession. 
• The Court clarified in this case that the plea of adverse possession is both a sword and shield.