Claim of Adverse Possession Carries (Implied) Admission of Title of Other Party – State of Haryana  v. Amin Lal, 2024-4 CurCC(SC) 222

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

In State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Vikram Nath,  Prasanna B. Varale JJ), November 19, 2024, it is held by the Supreme Court of India as under:

  • “By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.”

Facts & Findings – in a Nutshell

  • In the suit for recovery of possession, plaintiffs relied on jamabandi (revenue) entries, and sale deeds – a chain of title, to establish their ownership.
  • Revenue records are maintained by officials in regular course of duties. It carries a presumption of correctness under Sec. 35, Evid. Act.
  • While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession.
  • And can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.

HC decreed the suit holding –

  • By taking the plea of adverse possession, the defendants impliedly admitted the title of the plaintiffs.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant, SC held:

  • In a suit for possession plaintiffs must establish their ownership.
  • Here, defendants did not specifically deny plaintiffs’ ownership.
  • Instead, they primarily relied on plea of adverse possession.
  • Under O. VIII r. 5 CPC, facts not denied are deemed to be admitted.
  • By asserting Adv. Possn., the appellants impliedly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.
  • Defendants claim – long possession perfected title – Not sustainable. Instead, claim of hostile title in denial of the title of true owner needed for supporting plea of adverse possession.

Key Takeaways

  • (i) “By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.”
  • (ii) “The appellants claim that due to their long and continuous possession of the suit property since 1879-80, they have perfected their title, is also not sustainable in law.”
  • (iii) “However, it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens.”

Important Findings

“8. The appellants (defendants) contention that plaintiff failed to prove their title and ownership is completely misplaced for the reasons and analysis made hereunder:

  • 8.1 We find this argument unconvincing for several reasons: In their written statement before the Trial Court, the appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs’ ownership of the suit property. Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession. Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, allegations of fact not denied specifically are deemed to be admitted. By asserting adverse possession, the appellants have impliedly admitted the plaintiffs’ title.
  • 8.2 The plaintiffs relied on jamabandi entries to establish their ownership. The jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Exhibit P1) records the name of Shri Amin Lal as owner to the extent of half share. Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.
  • 8.3 The respondents(plaintiffs) have produced copies of registered sale deeds and mutation records before this Court, which were part of the additional documents filed with the counteraffidavit. Plaintiff No. 1, Shri Amin Lal, derived title through a registered sale deed dated 5th July 1960, and mutation No. 8329 was sanctioned on 20th April 1982. Plaintiff No. 2, Shri Ashok Kumar, derived his title through a registered sale deed dated 12th March 1973, and mutation No. 8330 was sanctioned on 20th April 1982. These documents establish a chain of title and cannot be ignored.
  • 8.4 The appellants(defendants) did not dispute the plaintiffs’ title in their pleadings or during the trial. The First Appellate Court’s finding that the plaintiffs are not the true owners is based on conjecture and lacks evidentiary support. The appellants(defendants)  cannot now, at this appellate stage, challenge the plaintiffs’ ownership without having raised a specific denial earlier.
  • 9. The appellants’(defendants) next submission that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs to establish their title is equally not borne out from the records. It is a well-settled principle that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiffs must establish their ownership. In the present case, the plaintiffs have done so by producing revenue records and, subsequently, the registered sale deeds and mutation entries. Furthermore, as the appellants(defendants) failed to deny the plaintiffs’ title specifically and instead relied on adverse possession, the burden has shifted to the appellants to prove their adverse possession. In the present case, the plaintiffs have sought possession based on their title, which they have established through documentary evidence.
  • 10. The appellants(defendants) claim that due to their long and continuous possession of the suit property since 1879-80, they have perfected their title, is also not sustainable in law. However, it is a fundamental principle that the State cannot claim adverse possession over the property of its own citizens.”

Claimant must have accepted 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 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.

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 vestingof 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 but also of the plaintiff.”

KNOWLEDGE of True Owner sine qua non of ADVERSE POSSESSION

1. For a possession to be “ADVERSE”, it must be one obviously arose by Dispossessing true owner, admitting his Title (Knowing him).

It is trite law – after 1963 Limitation Act, under Article 65 – the defendants should have founded its case on “adverse” possession with the pleading –

  • Started with wrongful dispossession,
    • – obviously – knowing True Owner.
  • hostile or notoriousenough
    • with a view to make True Owner aware
  • specifying date of starting
    • – obviously – knowing True Owner
  • admitting ‘real/true’ owner as ‘rightful’ owner,  
    • – obviously – knowing True Owner
  • with some overt act (Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chandar, 1984(2) SCC 286; Government of Kerala v. Joseph –AIR 2023 SC 3988).
    • – obviously – knowing True Owner”

See:

  • RadhesiamLal v. Sandhya – AIR 2024 SC 1595
  • Government of Kerala v. Joseph – AIR 2023 SC 3988
  • Ram NaginaRai v. DeoKumarRai – 2019-13 SCC 324.
  • Karnataka Board of Wakaf v. Govt of India – AIR 2004 SC 2096;
  • T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa – [(2006) 7 SCC 570]; and
  • PT Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma – AIR 2007 SC 1753;
  • Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393
  • Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. NirmalChandar 1984(2) SCC 286, P.N. Bhagwati, D.P. Madon
  • T. Lakshmi Reddi v. L. Lakshmi Reddi 1957 SCR 195).

2. If permissive holder, no adverse possession. See:

  • State of Haryana v. AminLal – 19 Nov. 2024 SC
  • NeelamGupta v. Rajendrakumar – 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, (2010) 5 SCC 203.

3. Permissive holder is Estopped from raising claim of Adverse Possession

  • Nand Ram v.Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393.

4. Mere possession, however long,  insufficient.  It must be adverse.  There is drastic change after 1963 Limitation Act.

  • Govt. of Kerala v. Joseph – AIR 2023 SC 3988
  • T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa – 2006(7) SCC 570.
  • Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chandar 1984(2) SCC 286.
  • Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India – (2004) 10 SCC 779.

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.

In T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570, it is held as under:.

  • …The High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true owner and even if they had believed that the Government was the true owner and not the plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. Obviously, the requirements of proving adverse possession have not been established. If the defendants are not sure who is the true owner the question of their being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the true owner do not raise…… Therefore, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property knowing fully well that the property belonged to the plaintiff’s father and the plaintiff’s vendor also did not take any action to evict them and the plaintiff and his vendor were aware that the properties belonged to them and despite the same, the plaintiff’s vendor did not take any action to evict them. Hence, the appellants/defendants have also perfected title by adverse possession. Therefore, the 2nd substantial question of law of is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants.” (Followed in: Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 46.)

No Adverse Possession Without Admitting Title of Real Owner

In Nand Ram v.  Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2020 SC 1884; (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.”

Our Apex Court, in Ayodhya case Judgment, M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2020-1 SCC 1, it is held as under:

  • “747. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other.”

This principle is laid down in the following decisions also:

  • The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, 2024-4 CurCC(SC) 222,
  • Kurella Naga Druva Vudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma, (2008) 15 SCC 150,
  • Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 461.

Claim of Adverse Possession by Tenant

In Nand Ram v.  Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393, the claim of adverse possession by the tenant was negatived by the Apex Court on the following grounds:

  • The respondent-tenant had admitted the ownership of the landlord in earlier proceedings.
  • Such plea operates as estoppel. The subsequent claim of adverse possession of the tenant as owner is not sustainable.
  • The respondent was to prove his continuous, open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner for a continuous period of 12 years. The respondent has not led any evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner.
  • He has also not surrendered possession before asserting hostile, continuous and open title to the knowledge of the true owner. (In terms of Sec. 108(q) of the TP Act possession of tenant remains permissive till it has been actually restored to the landlord.)

In Bishwanath Agarwala v. Sabitri Bera -2009(15) SCC 693 (Deepak Varma & SB Sinha, JJ) it is held as under:

  • “The landlord in a given case though may not be able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, but in the event, he proves his general title, may obtain a decree on the basis thereof.”

The Apex Court referred to Champalal Sharma v. Smt. Sunita Maitra, 1990 (1) DJLR 298, where SB Sihna, J. himself held:

  • “It is also well settled that one such relationship is admitted or established tenant would be estopped and precluded from challenging the title of the landlord; and if he does so, under the general rule, make himself liable for eviction on that ground”.

Plea of Title or permissive Possession  And Adverse Possession Are Mutually Contradictory.

Adverse possession can be raised only against the property owned by another person. In Abdul Hameed Rawther v. Basheer, ILR 2024-2 Ker 527; 2024-3 KLT 812, it is held as under:

  • “25. The law is well settled that the plea of adverse possession can be raised only against the property owned by another person against whom he asserts possession adverse to the title of the other (Raghavan v. Devayani [2024 (2) KHC 417] and Shri Uttam Chand (D) through LRs. v. Nathu Ram (D) through LRs. and Others [2020 KHC 6034]).”

In Government of Kerala v. Joseph, AIR 2023 SC 3988, it is held as under: 

  • “21.9 Claim of independent title and adverse possession at the same time amount to contradictory pleas. The case of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant, (1995) 2 SCC 543 elaborated this principle as:
  • “15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his possession was hostile to another’s title. One who holds possession on behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other’s title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all.”
  • This principle was upheld in the case of Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar (AIR 1996 SC 910, 1996 1 SCC 639 –two Judge Bench) –
  • “4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, necprecario. Since the appellant’s claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant.”
  • The Court in Uttam Chand (Sri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram AIR 2020 SC 461) has reiterated this principle of adverse possession.”

(Note: Mutually destructive plea is impermissible: (2006) 12  SCC 233, AIR 2009 SC 2355).

End Notes – 1

The same matter (adv. possn. is founded on acceptance of ownership of opposite side) has been examined in M Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das (2020) 1 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench – Ayodhya Case).

  • It has been held – a plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance of ownership of the property with the other side.

The Court held as under:

  • “747. A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other. Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed.
  • Evidently, therefore, the plaintiffs in Suit 4 ought to be cognisant of the fact that any claim of adverse possession against the Hindus or the temple would amount to an acceptance of a title in the latter.
  • Dr Dhavan has submitted that this plea is a subsidiary or alternate plea upon which it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to stand in the event that their main plea on title is held to be established on evidence. It becomes then necessary to assess as to whether the claim of adverse possession has been established.
  • 748. A person who sets up a plea of adverse possession must establish both possession which is peaceful, open and continuous – possession which meets the requirement of being ‘nec vi nec claim and nec precario’. To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse. These requirements have to be duly established first by adequate pleadings and second by leading sufficient evidence. Evidence, it is well settled, can only be adduced with reference to matters which are pleaded in a civil suit and in the absence of an adequate pleading, evidence by itself cannot supply the deficiency of a pleaded case. Reading paragraph 11(a), it becomes evident that beyond stating that the Muslims have been in long exclusive and continuous possession beginning from the time when the Mosque was built and until it was desecrated, no factual basis has been furnished. This is not merely a matter of details or evidence. A plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner and the law is not readily accepting of such a case unless a clear and cogent basis has been made out in the pleadings and established in the evidence.”

It is Quoted in:

  • Neelam Gupta v Rajendra Kumar Gupta, AIR 2024 SC 5374
  • M.  Radheshyamlal v. V Sandhya, 2024 AIR SC 1595
  • Sri Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR  2020 SC 461.

End Notes – 2

Easement: Dominant Owner  Cannot Dispute The Title Of The Servient Owner

  • Note: Prescriptive easement is also created by adverse user, by the hostile use (Kantaben Parsottamdas v. Ganshyambhai Ramkrishan Purohit, AIR 2022  Guj  146).

It is trite law that the dominant owner  cannot dispute the title of the servient owner (Reghuprasad v. M.  Raghunathan, AIR 2020 Ker 16). 

In Omana v. Reji Kurian, AIR 2022 Ker 91, it is held (K. Babu, J.) as under:

  • “19. Yet another aspect that requires consideration is that the pleadings of the defendants in the written statement go in the line, denying the title of the plaintiff over the ‘B’ schedule way. One of the fundamental ingredients in a claim of easement is the admission of the title of the servient owner by the dominant owner. On this ground alone, the claim of the defendants over plaint ‘B’ schedule property by way of easement by prescription must fail.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

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

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment