Decades of Possession Do Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Rules That Revenue Entries and “Dharam-Arth” Occupation Cannot Establish Adverse Possession Without a Hostile Claim
Case Name: Bhag Singh (Dead) Through Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others
Date of Judgment: 10 September 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 983
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Held: The Supreme Court held that revenue entries describing a person as being in possession of land for “Dharam-Arth” purposes may evidence possession but neither create nor extinguish title. A valid dedication of property to a religious institution requires clear and unequivocal evidence that the owner intended to permanently divest himself of ownership. Long, uninterrupted possession by a religious institution or successive Mahants cannot, by itself, prove such dedication.
The Court further held that adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through actual, open, continuous and hostile possession denying the true owner’s title. The claimant must disclose when permissive or religious-purpose possession became hostile and establish overt acts by which that hostility was communicated to the true owner. Mere passage of time cannot convert permissive possession into adverse possession.
Summary: The dispute concerned title and possession over agricultural land measuring 4 kanals and 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Muktsar, Punjab. The plaintiffs claimed ownership under a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1965. The defendants, representing a religious Dera, contended that the land had already been irrevocably dedicated to the Dera for religious and charitable purposes. They relied principally upon revenue records showing possession of successive Mahants as “gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth.” Alternatively, they asserted that their continuous possession over several decades had matured into ownership by adverse possession.
The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit after accepting the defendants’ case regarding dedication and adverse possession. The First Appellate Court affirmed that decision. In the second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the concurrent findings and decreed the suit, observing that revenue entries could not conclusively establish ownership or dedication and that the essential requirements of adverse possession had not been proved.
Affirming the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court found that the courts below had committed errors of law by treating revenue entries as proof of title and prolonged possession as sufficient to establish adverse possession. The defendants’ pleas were also fundamentally inconsistent: dedication presupposed that ownership had vested in the religious institution, whereas adverse possession proceeded on the basis that title continued to belong to another person.
The Court nevertheless clarified that the defendants’ failure to prove title could not enlarge the rights conveyed to the plaintiffs. Under the principle that no person can transfer a better title than he possesses, the registered sale deed transferred only the interest that the vendors were legally competent to convey.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 22 March 2011. It upheld the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants while clarifying that the plaintiffs acquired only the lawful interest held by their vendors under the registered sale deed; the weakness of the defendants’ claim could not expand the extent of that conveyance.