A Purchaser Cannot Be an Adverse Possessor on Day One: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Contradictory Title Claim

Case Name: Didar Singh and Others v. Sukhdev Singh and Others

Date of Judgment: 26 May 2026

Citation: RSA-1058-1992

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a person claiming ownership under a sale deed cannot simultaneously assert adverse possession from the very date of purchase. Adverse possession requires hostile animus against the true owner, whereas possession under a sale deed is based on a claim of lawful title. The Court further held that mere long possession reflected in revenue records does not confer title in the absence of specific pleadings and proof of adverse possession.

Summary: The dispute concerned agricultural land claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 30 January 1973 executed by Pritam Singh. The plaintiff alleged that after transferring the property to him, Pritam Singh subsequently executed another sale deed dated 25 March 1974 in favour of the defendants regarding a portion of the same land, despite having already divested himself of ownership.

The trial court accepted that the plaintiff held superior title under the earlier sale deed. However, it partly dismissed the suit regarding 1 kanal 9 marlas of land by holding that the defendants had remained in possession since 25 March 1974 and had consequently perfected title by adverse possession. The suit was therefore decreed only in part.

On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the findings and decreed the suit in its entirety. It observed that the defendants had neither pleaded adverse possession nor limitation in their written statement and had consistently claimed ownership solely on the basis of the subsequent sale deed. Since the vendor had already sold the property to the plaintiff in 1973, the subsequent sale deed conveyed no valid title.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that they had remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than twelve years and that the lower appellate court erred in rejecting their defence merely because adverse possession had not been specifically pleaded. They relied upon jamabandi and khasra girdawari entries showing their possession over the disputed land.

The High Court framed the substantial question of law as whether the appellants had perfected title by adverse possession against the plaintiff. While examining the issue, the Court noted that throughout the litigation the defendants had asserted ownership through the sale deed dated 25 March 1974. Subsequently, they sought to introduce a plea that they had also become owners by adverse possession from the same date. The Court found these positions fundamentally irreconcilable.

The Court observed that possession obtained under a sale deed is possession under colour of title and not hostile possession against the true owner. A purchaser claiming ownership through a conveyance acknowledges derivation of title from the vendor and cannot simultaneously assert that his possession was hostile from inception. Adverse possession requires a clear repudiation of the true owner’s title coupled with hostile animus, which was entirely absent from the pleadings.

Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decisions in P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Papaiah, the Court reiterated that a person claiming adverse possession must specifically plead and prove when possession became hostile, the nature of such possession, whether hostility was known to the true owner, and the period for which such possession continued uninterrupted. Mere duration of possession is insufficient.

The Court further held that revenue entries such as jamabandis and khasra girdawaris may indicate possession for fiscal purposes but do not establish ownership or hostile animus. In the absence of clear pleadings and convincing evidence regarding adverse possession, such entries could not defeat the plaintiff’s title arising from the earlier registered sale deed.

The High Court also rejected the defendants’ reliance on Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It observed that limitation under Article 65 begins only when possession becomes adverse to the true owner. Since the defendants failed to establish the commencement of adverse possession, they could not invoke the bar of limitation.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the lower appellate court. It held that the defendants could derive no benefit either from the subsequent sale deed executed by a vendor who had already parted with title or from an inconsistent and unsubstantiated plea of adverse possession. The substantial question of law was answered against the appellants.