Party Claiming Adverse Possession Must Know Who The Actual Owner Of The Property Is: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that when a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual owner of the property is.
The Court was deciding a batch of appeals arising out of three separate suits regarding the property dispute.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “When a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual owner of the property is. Secondly, he must plead that he was in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years to the original owner's knowledge.”
The bench reiterated that to prove the plea of adverse possession: (a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner; (b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner; (c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and (d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed.
Advocate M.P. Parthiban represented the appellant while Advocate Prashant Shrikant Kenjale represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit and the respondents were the defendants. The original owner of the suit property died in 1947 and executed a registered settlement deed in 1945. She settled the suit property by the said settlement deed in favour of three persons and died intestate without leaving any legal representatives. The original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff in 1955 in which he claimed that he was in open, uninterrupted, and continuous possession of the suit property for 45 years. He claimed that he had perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession along with his father and other family members.
As the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and trespass upon the suit property, the suit was filed for a declaration that he had become the owner by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. Thereafter, an original suit was filed by the defendants against the plaintiff and the suit was filed for possession based on the title acquired by the defendants based on the sale deed of 2001. The second defendant filed a suit for eviction against the tenants in the suit property in which an order of eviction was passed. The City Civil Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by the defendants. Therefore, two appeals were preferred by the plaintiff before the High Court for challenging the decrees in the first two suits but the court dismissed the same. Hence, he approached the Apex Court.
The Apex Court noted, “As stated earlier, the suit was filed on 17th November 1995. Therefore, going by the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff can, at the highest, claim to be in possession from the year 1950. In the same paragraph, the plaintiff stated that the original owner died in 1947. It is not pleaded that even before the year 1947, the plaintiff or his father were in hostile possession to the knowledge of the original owner.”
The Court observed that when a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual owner of the property is and he must plead that he was in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years to the original owner's knowledge.
“These material averments are completely absent in the plaint. Therefore, there is no proper foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaint. … The High Court has referred to a complaint dated 25th August 1995 submitted by the plaintiff to the police. In the complaint, firstly, the plaintiff asserted that he was in possession of only the front portion of the suit property. Secondly, he specifically asserted that he had been in possession of the suit property for 35 years before filing the complaint. It is pointed out that this complaint was filed one year before the institution of the suit. Thus, he claimed to have been in possession since 1960”, it added.
The Court said that in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed to have been in possession since 1950 and that his own complaint defeats the case made out in the plaint.
“The Trial Court and High Court rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his plea of adverse possession. In fact, as stated earlier, there was no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plant itself. Therefore, the suit for declaration of ownership by the plaintiff must fail”, it held.
“During the submissions, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is more than 80 years old. The plaintiff was in possession of at least a part of the suit property almost from 1995. Therefore, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals, we propose to grant the plaintiff a longer time to vacate the suit property”, it also ordered.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals and directed that the decree of possession shall not be executed till March 31, 2025 subject to the condition of the appellant and all adult members of his family filing unconditional undertakings on oath to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the suit property to the defendants.
Cause Title- M. Radheshyamlal v. V Sandhya and Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 214)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR M.P. Parthiban, Advocates Arunagiri, and Priyaranjani Nagamuthu.
Respondents: AOR Prashant Shrikant Kenjale and Advocate Srishty Pandey.
