SC: Continuous possession not adverse unless hostile to true owner’s title; denial of ownership defeats adverse possession claim

Case Name: Shri Uttam Chand (D) through LRs v. Nathu Ram (D) through LRs & Others
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 15, 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16321 of 2011)

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants had failed to establish adverse possession, as mere long possession cannot ripen into ownership unless it is hostile, open, and adverse to the title of the true owner. Since the defendants denied both the vesting of the property with the Managing Officer and the plaintiff’s title, their plea of adverse possession was legally unsustainable.

Summary: The plaintiff purchased the suit property in a government auction in 1964 and was issued a sale certificate in 1965. In 1979, he filed a suit for possession against the defendants, who claimed ownership through long possession dating back to their forefathers. The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s ownership but dismissed the suit on limitation grounds, holding that adverse possession had accrued. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding and decreed the suit, holding the plea of adverse possession unproven. However, the High Court allowed the defendants’ second appeal, relying on evidence of possession since 1963 and holding the suit time-barred. On further appeal, the Supreme Court referred to authoritative precedents including Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma, and Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, and emphasized that adverse possession requires clear proof of hostile intent, denial of true ownership, and animus possidendi. Since the defendants never acknowledged the plaintiff’s title or claimed possession adverse to him, their claim failed.

Decision: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the plaintiff’s suit decreed. The appeal was accordingly allowed