Ouster & Dispossession in Adverse Possession

Saji Koduvath, Advocate Kottayam.

Abstract

• There is a difference between the (old) Limitation Act of 1908 and the (new) Limitation Act of 1963, as regards (i) burden of proof and (ii) dispossession of true owner.
• Under the 1963 (new) Limitation Act –
  • 1. The burden to prove Adverse Possession is upon the person who claims it.
  • 2. “Dispossession of true owner“ is an important factor to attract Adverse Possession.
  • 3. ‘Dispossession’ implies ouster. However, (i) the quality of evidence expected as to ‘dispossession’ in cases of adverse possession against a co-owner, or in case of a permissive-possession, stands on a ‘higher footing’; and (ii) this is particularly discerned as ‘ouster‘.

• Under the old Limitation Act of 1908 –
  • 1. The true owner lost the right to recover property if he did not come forward with a suit for recovery within 12 years (of losing possession).
  • 2. Therefore, the burden to prove ‘possession within 12 years’ was upon the true owner.
  • 3. “Dispossession” of the true owner was not an essential element of Adverse Possession. However, the requirement of ouster, for attracting Adverse Possession, was insisted on in cases of permissive or joint possession.

The ‘Ingredients’ of Adverse Possession

The authoritative decisions of our Apex Court made it clear that the following are the basic elements (1963 Limitation Act) to attract Adverse Possession –

• The claimant has been in ‘hostile and open, continuous uninterrupted as of right‘ possession of the land,
• in denial of the title of the rightful owner,
• adversely to the interest of the owner of the land,
• started with wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner
  • (Note: Article 65, Limitation Act says – period 12 years from dispossession),
• exercising absolute rights of ownership in respect of the land, and
•  on and from .. . .. (date).

And, it is appropriate to plead ‘hostile and open’ possession as under:

• Claimant’s acts were hostile enough to impute knowledge to the true owner that the possession was adverse to his title from its inception.

In Dagadabai v. Abbas alias Gulab Rustum Pinjari, (2017) 13 SCC 705, it is observed as under:

• “It is equally well-settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants.”

The celebrated decisions that analyzed the ‘ingredients’ of Adverse Possession are –

• Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 KHC OnLine 6764.
• Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, AIR 2019 SC 3827: (2019) 8 SCC 729
• P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, AIR 2007 SC 1753, (2007) 6 SCC 59;
• T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570, and
• Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt of India – (2004) 10 SCC 779.

Read Book No. 5

•  Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview •  What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law? •  How to Plead Adverse Possession?  •  Declaration & Recovery: Art. 65, not Art. 58 Governs •   Adverse Possession: Dispossession and Knowledge •   Adverse Possession: Admission of Title of Other Party •   Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession •   Does ‘Abandonment’ a Recognised Right in Indian Law? •   Fraudulent Registration of Deed: No Adverse Possession •   Does 12 Years’ Unobstructed Possession Precede the Suit? •   Prescriptive Rights – Is it Inchoate until Upheld by Court •   Sec. 27, Limitation Act: Right to Declaration and Recovery •   ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law •   Possession: a Substantive Right Protected in Indian Law •   ‘Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner’ •   When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’ •   Can a Tenant Claim Adverse Possession •   Adverse Possession Against Government •   Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government? •   Government of Kerala v. Joseph •   Adverse Possession: UK and US Law and Classic Decisions

‘Dispossession‘ implies Ouster

It is clear from the above decisions that ‘dispossession’ (of the true owner) implies ouster itself. However, (i) the quality of evidence expected as to ‘dispossession’ in cases of adverse possession, against a co-owner, or in case of a permissive-possession, stands on a ‘higher footing’; and (ii) this is particularly discerned as ‘ouster‘. (See: Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash, AIR 1995 SC 1789, 1995-4 SCC 496.)

What is ouster?

“Black’s Law Dictionary” explains ‘ouster‘ as under:

• “A putting out; dispossession; amotion of possession. A species of injuries to things real, by which the wrong-doer gains actual occupation of the land, and compels the rightful owner to seek his legal remedy in order to gain possession.
• An “ouster” is a wrongful dispossession or exclusion of a party from real property and involves a question of intent.
• Notorious and unequivocal act by which one cotenant deprives another of right to common and equal possession and enjoyment of property.” 

Webster’s New World Law Dictionary expounds ‘ouster’ as under:

• “Ouster: n. 1 The wrongful exclusion of a person from property or dispossession of same. 2 The removing from office of a public or corporate official.”

In P Ramanatha Aiyar’s “The Law Lexicon” with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms and Words & Phrases, Second Edition 1997) it is laid down-

• “Dispossession” implies ouster, and the essence of ouster lies in that the person ousting is in actual possession.
• Dispossession implies some active element in the mind of a person in ousting or dislodging or depriving a person against his will or counsel and there must be some sort of action on his part.” (Quoted in: U. P.  Gandhi Smarak Nidhi v. Aziz Mian, 2013-3 ADJ 321, 2013-4 All LJ 149)

In “Mitra’s Legal and Commercial Dictionary” 5th Edition (1990) by A.N. Saha, ‘Dispossession’ is explained as under:

• “The term ‘dispossession’ applies when a person comes in and drives out others from possession. It imports ouster; a driving out of possession against the will of the person in actual possession.” (Quoted in: U. P.  Gandhi Smarak Nidhi v. Aziz Mian, 2013-3 ADJ 321, 2013-4 All LJ 149)

‘Ouster’ of Co-owners

It is considered in Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash, AIR 1995 SC 1789, 1995-4 SCC 496. It is held as under:

• ” ‘Ouster’ does not mean actual driving out of the co- sharer from the property. It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients required to constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner. They are –
  • (i) declaration of hostile animus
  • (ii) long and uninterrupted possession of the person pleading ouster and
  • (iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of other co-owner.
• Thus, a co-owner, can under law, claim title by adverse possession against another co-owner who can, of course, file appropriate suit including suit for joint possession within time prescribed by law.”

Plea and proof of ouster is necessary when one plead adverse possession against a co-owner. Express, positive and specific overt acts ousting co-owner from possession are necessary; merehostile acts of the adverse possession are not enough(See: Velliyottummel Sooppi v. Nadukandy Moossa, AIR 1969 Ker 222).

Privy Council in Coera v. Appuhamy,AIR 1914 PC 243 held as under:

• “Entering into possession and having a lawful title to enter, he could not divest himself of that title by pretending that he had no title as all. His title must have ensured for the benefit of his co-proprietors. The principle recognised by Wood, V.C. in Thomas v. Thomas (1856) 25 LJ Ch 159 (161): 110 RR 107 holds good: `Possession is never considered adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title’….. His possession was, in law, the possession of his co-owners. It was not possible for him to put an end to that possession by any secret intention in his mind. Nothing short of ouster or something equivalent to ouster could bring about that result.”(Quoted in: Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash, AIR 1995 SC 1789, 1995-4 SCC   496).

Permissive Possession will not Bring Forth Ouster or Adverse Possession

When the old Limitation Act of 1908 reigned, our Apex Court, in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314, following Debendra Lal Khan case, (1933-34) 61 IA 78 : AIR 1934 PC 23], observed as under :

• “4. … But it is well-settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one coheir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits, of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir’s title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. … the burden of making out ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title of a co-heir by his adverse possession.” (Quoted in: Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, (2009) 16 SCC 517).

Amimus and Adverse Possession

• In L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash  (2009) 13 SCC 229 it is held – permissive possession or possession in the absence of Animus possidendi would not constitute the claim of adverse possession.
• In Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar (1994) 6 SCC 591 it is held – possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession.

From the above decisions, it is clear that the quality of evidence expected as to ‘dispossession’ in cases of adverse possession against a co-owner or in case of a permissive-possession is ‘higher’; and this ‘dispossession’ is termed as ouster.

Permissive Possession Cannot Be Basis For Adverse Possession

It is definitely held in State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, 19 Nov 2024, (SC) as under:

• “Permissive possession cannot be the basis for a claim of adverse possession.”

See also:

• Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, 2024 INSC 769
• Ram Nagina Rai v. Deo Kumar Rai, 2019-13 SCC 324
• Thakur Kishan Singh v. Arvind Kumar, 1994-6 SCC 591
• L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash  (2009) 13 SCC 229
• R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, (2010) 5 SCC 203

In Chandramathy C.S. v. Devakey Amma, 2010 (4) KerHC 383it is pointed out – ‘Permissive possession is not at all adverse and limitation does not commence until possession become adverse. The defendants have not stated as to when permissive possession became adverse to the real owner.’ (Referred to in: Abdul Hameed Rawtherv. Basheer, ILR 2024-2 Ker 527; 2024 3 KHC 216; 2024 3 KLT 812.

Section 116 of the Evidence Act – Estoppel of tenant

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:

• “Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be heard to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property.”

In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335: 1976 4 SCC 838, it is held as under:

• “The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant”.

The principle behind the proposition, which asserts that the owner/landlord has the right to recover the property based on his title if the defendant-tenant raises claim of title, is founded upon the notion that a tenant is precluded from disputing the title of the landlord or owner, as laid down in Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

See: •   Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession

Denial of Title of the True Owner

In Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma Alias Nacharamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150, it was pointed out – if according to the defendant, the plaintiff was not the true owner, his possession would not have been sufficient to term it ‘hostile’ to the plaintiff’s title; and that the defendant had to show, to attract adverse possession, that his possession was also hostile to the title and possession of the true owner.

It not sure who the true owner is, there will be no Adverse Possession

Adverse possession is hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner. To attract adverse possession there must be animus possidendi to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner (Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, 2010-14 SCC 316; M. Venkatesh v. BDA, 2015-17 SCC 1; Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai, 2019-9 SCC 369) with the knowledge of the true owner. If the defendants are not sure who the true owner is, there will be no question of possessing the property hostile to the true owner (T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570; Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 46).

Claimant must have Accepted the Title of the True Owner

It is a basic factor in adverse possession- the claimant thereof must have accepted the title of the true owner.

In Nand Ram v.  Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393, it was pointed out by the Apex Court :

• The question of adverse possession without admitting the title of the real owner is not tenable.  

In Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 461, our Apex Court allowed the appeal, negating the claim of adverse possession raised by the defendant, inter alia, for not accepting the title of the plaintiff (true owner), by the defendant. It was observed  as under: “16. In the present case, the defendants have not admitted the vesting of the suit property with the Managing Officer and the factum of its transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have denied the title not only of the Managing Officer

Legal Ramifications of ‘Ouster’ in Adverse Possession

The simple word meaning of the term ‘ouster‘ is dispossession, removal, eviction, deprivation etc. It is definite that “dispossession” is an important element in the 1963 Limitation Act to attract Adverse Possession.

Legal ramifications of ‘ouster‘ is examined in Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash, AIR 1995 SC 1789, 1995-4 SCC 496. It is held as under:

• ” ‘Ouster’ does not mean actual driving out of the co- sharer from the property. It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients required to constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner. They are –
  • (i) declaration of hostile animus
  • (ii) long and uninterrupted possession of the person pleading ouster and
  • (iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of other co-owner.
• Thus, a co-owner, can under law, claim title by adverse possession against another co-owner who can, of course, file appropriate suit including suit for joint possession within time prescribed by law.”

From Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash it is clear that, in our law, ‘ouster‘ is a compendium of all ingredients to attract Adverse Possession.

1908 Limitation Act – ‘Ouster’ Needed against Co-owner Alone

Under 1908 Limitation Act, the the true owner lost the right to recover property if he did not come-forward with a suit for recovery within 12 years.

• ^{Note: (i) Under 1908 Limitation Act, ‘dispossession’ of true owner was not a necessary requirement to attract Adverse Possession. (ii) But, under 1963 Limitation Act, ‘dispossession’ of true owner is a decisive requisite to attract Adverse Possession.}

Permissive possession will not bring-in Adverse Possession. Therefore, under 1908 Limitation Act, plea and proof of ouster were insisted when one pleaded adverse possession against a co-owner; that is, positive and specific overt acts, ousting co-owner from possession, were imperative; and mere hostile acts of adverse possession were not enough (See: Velliyottummel Sooppi v. Nadukandy Moossa, AIR 1969 Ker 222).

Privy Council in Coera v. Appuhamy, AIR 1914 PC 243 held as under:

• “Entering into possession and having a lawful title to enter, he could not divest himself of that title by pretending that he had no title as all. His title must have ensured for the benefit of his co-proprietors.
• The principle recognised by Wood, V.C. in Thomas Vs. Thomas (1856) 25 LJ Ch 159 (161): 110 RR 107 holds good: ‘Possession is never considered adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title’….. 
• His possession was, in law, the possession of his co-owners. It was not possible for him to put an end to that possession by any secret intention in his mind. Nothing short of ouster or something equivalent to ouster could bring about that result.” (Quoted in: Vidya Devi @ Vidya Vati v. Prem Prakash, AIR 1995 SC 1789, 1995-4 SCC   496. See also: Kshithish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi, AIR 1981 SC 707.)

Article 142 of the (Repealed) Limitation Act, 1908

Article 142 of the (repealed) Limitation Act, 1908, which dealt with Adverse Possession, did not put down the term ‘adverse’. 

Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 reads as under:

142. For possession of immovable property when the plaintiff, while in possession of the property, has been dispossessed or has discontinued the possession

12 years

The date of the dispossession or discontinuance

Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provided that the true owner would lose his right to recover the property from a trespasser if he failed to file a suit within the period of 12 years.

Art. 65 of Limitation. Act, 1963

Articles 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 brought-in  complete change insofar as the onus of proof is concerned:

65. For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.

12 years

When the possession of Defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

When these provisions Attracted

• Plaintiff must have been dispossessed by the defendant.
• Both Acts deal with limitation for suits for recovery of possession.

Can a defendant plead Adverse Possession as a Shield? Should there be a Counter Claim for Declaration?

Defendant can pleaded adverse possession as a shield. A Counter Claim for Declaration is not required. It is clear from Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur,  AIR 2019 SC 3827.

There are three potential divergent views.

• First, it being governed by the provisions of the Limitation Statute (including Sec. 27, Limitation Act) no declaration is needed.
• Second, the court has to raise an issue on title on adverse possession (if no declaration of title is sought for, by way of counterclaim), and direct the defendant to pay court fees as provided in the Court Fees Act (i.e., as provided for in the Section pertaining to ‘Court fee for Injunction’).
• Third, a declaration is necessary.

The first view is the most reasonable and cogent one. Because Article 65 itself provides that the plaintiff would fail if the defendant proves adverse possession for over twelve years. Sec. 27 also confers a vested right. It reads as under:

• 27. Extinguishment of right to property—At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.

It is held in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur,  AIR 2019 SC 3827, as under:

• “62. ….. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. In case of dispossession by another person by taking law in his hand a possessory suit can be maintained under Article 64, even before the ripening of title by way of adverse possession. By perfection of title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. In case he has been dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse possession. Similarly, any other person who might have dispossessed the plaintiff having perfected title by way of adverse possession can also be evicted until and unless such other person has perfected title against such a plaintiff by adverse possession. Similarly, under other articles also in case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff who has perfected the title by adverse possession, can sue and maintain a suit.”

Burden/Onus of Proof – Complete change by Limitation Act, 1963

In the recent decision, Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023 KHC OnLine 6764, our Apex Court observed that burden of proof rests on the person claiming adverse possession. The Court followed P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59, which observed as under:

• “34. The law in this behalf has undergone a change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit that he had title and possession of the land, whereas in terms of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the legal position has underwent complete change insofar as the onus is concerned: once a party proves its title, the onus of proof would be on the other party to prove claims of title by adverse possession….”

Date of Adverse Possession & Knowledge to the True Owner etc.

Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316 explored Animus possidendi as a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. It was found that a mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until the possessor holds the property adverse to the title of the true owner. The date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and that possession was open and undisturbed – must be established. (Referred to in: Brijesh Kumar v. Shardabai, (2019) 9 SCC 369; Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 46).

Owner “not take care to know notorious facts”  and hostile colour of title, required

In P Lakshmi Reddy v. L Lakshmi Reddy, 1957 SCR 195, it was observed as under:

• “7…Consonant with this principle the commencement of adverse possession, in favour of a person implies that the person is in actual possession, at the time, with a notorious hostile claim of exclusive title, to repel which, the true owner would then be in a position to maintain an action. It would follow that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the requisite animus.” (Quoted in: M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1)

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729, has held as under:

• “60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required. Trespasser’s long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession…”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLiveFree’? Click here – “How to Subscribe Free“

---

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Title, ownership and Possession

• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Grant in Law

Evidence Act – General

• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory

Sec. 65B

• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Law on Documents

• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Interpretation of Wills

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law

Stamp Act & Registration

• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration

Will

• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will

Arbitration

• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?

Divorce

• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur Vs. Union of India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head

Religious issues

• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions