Adverse Possession Plea Requires Stricter Proof; Generic Plea Of Being In Possession For 12 Years Not Enough: Karnataka HC

The Court also held that a generic plea of being in possession beyond 12 years would not meet the requirement of the law governing adverse possession.

The Bench of Justice MGS Kamal observed, “Besides, the contesting defendants are required to independently plead and establish their case of they being in possession adverse to the interest of the plaintiff and they cannot rely upon the documents of some one else who though made party has neither filed written statement nor entered the witness box. Plea of adverse possession requires stricter proof by the person who specifically pleads so. The First Appellate Court therefore in the considered view of this Court erred in relying upon the documentary evidence which do not pertain to the contesting defendants.”

Advocate Sangamesh RB appeared for the Appellant whereas Advocate A Madhusudhana Rao appeared for the Respondents.

A suit was filed by the Appellant-plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and possession of the suit property. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents-defendants, set aside the judgment passed by the Civil Judge and held that Respondents-defendants had become owners of the suit property by adverse possession.

A suit of partition was going on in the Appellant-plaintiff’s family, and the suit property was not taken care of. Taking advantage of this, it was alleged that the Respondents-defendants trespassed into the portion of the suit property and made encroachments.

The Court said, “When the plaintiff in the instant case has been successful in establishing his title over the property it was incumbent upon the part of the defendants to have specifically pleaded and proved that the plaintiff had lost his title by reason of defendants being in possession of this property adverse to his interest for more than 12 years. It is in this intrinsic context the pleading and the evidence produced by the defendants needs to be appreciated.”

The Court further held that the Respondents-defendants who had disputed the claim of the Appellant-plaintiff and who set up a plea of adverse possession were required to plead and prove as to the date from which their possession became adverse to the title and interest of the Appellant-plaintiff. “A generic plea of they being in possession beyond 12 years, particularly in the absence of they not having knowledge of plaintiff being owner of the property and they being under the impression of the land in their possession belonging to the Government would not meet the requirement of law governing adverse possession.”, it said.

The Court concluded, “Thus, for the aforesaid reasons and analysis above, this Court is of the considered view that First Appellate Court not justified in holding that all the defendants had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession even when defendants 2 to 8 and 10 had not filed their written statement. Similarly, the First Appellate Court was not justified in holding that defendants 1, 6, 7 and 11 had perfected their title by adverse possession when they were not clear as to the property in which they were in possession. The substantial questions of law are thus answered accordingly.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Sri CM Meer Liyakhat Ali v. Smt Vasanthamma and ors.

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Sangamesh RB

Respondents: Advocate A Madhusudhana Rao

Click here to read/download the Judgment