These Requirements are Not Expressly Stated in Article 65 Limitation Act, or in ‘Nec Vi, Nec Clam, Nec Precario’
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Abstract
The law of adverse possession in India emphasises two distinctive and interrelated key elements:
- First, intention of the claimant—to possess the land of another with a positive intent to dispossess him; and
- Second, knowledge of the true owner—possession of the claimant must be open and hostile enough to impute knowledge thereof to the true owner.
These elements of ‘dispossession‘ and the true owner’s knowledge are not expressly stated either in Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or in the classic trinity—nec vi, nec clam, nec precario—but have been developed through judicial exposition by the Supreme Court of India.
Key Takeaways
1. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, lays down the period of limitation for adverse possession as 12 years. It reads as under:
| 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. |
2. The words in Article 65 — ‘when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff‘ — necessarily contemplate a “knowledge” on the part of the plaintiff. Such ‘knowledge‘ must have been perceived or obtained by the true owner from the claimant’s open, hostile and notorious acts asserting title.
3. Though the doctrine of adverse possession is statutorily recognised, it is not expressly defined in any statute. Indian common law requires the co-existence of the classic trinity—nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. It can be explained as under:
- Nec vi: i.e. not by force –implying peaceability,
- Nec clam: i.e. not in secrecy – implying publicity, and
- Nec precario: i.e. not by permission –implying possession without the true owner’s consent, and thus adverse to him.
4. In adverse possession, the claimant’s intention to possess (animus possidendi) is decisive. The state of mind of the true owner is not determinative. What matters is the claimant’s outward assertion of hostile possession, sufficient to impute (and thereby infer) knowledge to the owner.
- (‘Animus‘, in Latin, denotes “intention” or “state of mind;”
- ‘possidendi‘ means “to possess.”)
5. The ‘animus’ required for adverse possession is the animus to possess the land, coupled with the conscious aim and objective of ‘dispossessing‘ the true owner.
6. To establish the requirement ‘adverse’, the trespasser must know who the true owner is.
7. The doctrine of animus possidendi and the classical common-law formulation—nec vi, nec clam, nec precario—are widely recognised across common-law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia, and several Caribbean and African countries.
- Distinctive features of Indian law: The specific requirements of dispossession and the true owner’s knowledge are peculiarities of Indian law. It flows from the language of Article 65—“when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.”
8. The distinctive statutory phrasing in the Indian law (“when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff”) casts the burden of proof on the claimant.
9. In other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the statutes focus on the accrual of the right of action the moment the owner is dispossessed; they do not qualify it as the possession “becomes adverse.”
- 1. United Kingdom (England & Wales): Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980, – 12 years from the date on which the “right of action accrued.”
- 2. Malaysia: Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1953 – 12 years from the date the “right of action first accrued.”
- 3. Singapore: Section 9 (Cap 163)of the Singapore Limitation Act – 12 years when the right of action accrues.
- 4. Australia: Vary by state, but they generally follow the “accrual of right”.
- 5. Canada: “When the right to make an entry or distress or to bring an action first accrued.”
Part I
“Becomes Adverse to the Plaintiff”
Article 65 of the Limitation Act reads—“becomes adverse to the plaintiff”. It directly embraces doctrines of dispossession and the owner’s knowledge. In other common-law jurisdictions, these requirements do not remain in statutes; they exist only as implicit or judge-made inferences.
“Knowledge” as to Adverse Possession
Drastic changes have been made to the law on Adverse Possession by the 1963 Limitation Act. It introduced the words – “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff“.
The ‘knowledge’ required to establish adverse possession is that which is furnished to (or thrust upon) the true owner through the claimant’s open and hostile assertion of title. That is, the materials for such knowledge must have been furnished by the claimant’s adverse acts.
In T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, 2006-7 SCC 570, it is held as under:
- The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the formers hostile action.”(Quoted in: Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam, AIR 2008 SC 346; 2007-14 SCC 308.)
Therefore, one line of enquiry in a case of adverse possession, will be –
- whether the true owner had the required knowledge of the hostile acts of the claimant
- and was there a means or chance of knowing such hostile acts.
‘Peaceful Possession’ Denotes Owner’s Inaction Despite Knowledge of Hostile Claim
‘Peaceful possession’ is an essential ingredient in perfecting adverse possession. It is embedded in the requirement of nec vi (not by force). It denotes possession of the claimant that continues without disturbance, notwithstanding his open and hostile acts. In other words, despite such acts—sufficient to make out knowledge of the adverse claim to the true owner—the owner fails to take steps to resist or interrupt such (hostile or unauthorised) possession.
In Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729, it has been 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.”
- (Quoted in: Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, AIR 2024 SC 5374; Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR 2020 SC 46; Krishnamurthy S. Setlur v. OV Narasimha Setty, 2020-12 SCC 244.)
In Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad, (2020) 9 SCC 393, it is pointed out:
- “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.”
See also:
- Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009-16 SCC 517,
Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam, AIR 2008SC 346; 2007 14 SCC 308,
Chatti Konati Rao v. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, 2010-14 SCC 316
Intention to Dispossess
The ‘animus’ or intention required for adverse possession is not the mere intention to possess, but an intention to possess in a manner that effectively excludes or dispossesses the true owner.
- Article 65, Limitation Act, lays down the period of 12 years from ‘dispossession‘.
- Therefore, the ‘animus’ required in adverse possession is animus to possess, coupled with the conscious intent to ‘dispossess‘ the true owner.
Acts and claims must be hostile enough to bring the knowledge of the Owner
PT Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, AIR 2007 SC 1753, is an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court that discussed various views on adverse possession. It is observed in this decision as under:
- “Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile.”
- “Thus, there must be intention to dispossess (Article 65, Limitation Act – period 12 years from). And it needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to object.“
Owner must have Failed to Respond the ‘Notorious facts’
To invite adverse possession, the owner must have failed to ‘take notice of‘ the ‘notorious facts‘, despite the knowledge of the acts (of the claimant) under the colour of a hostile title.
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)
In Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639, it was observed as under:
- “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, nec precario. 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.”
Should the Party claim Adverse Possession must KNOW the Actual Owner?
Yes.
In M. Radheshyamlal v. V. Sandhya, (Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.), AIR 2024 SC 1595, as under:
- “12. Therefore, to prove the plea of adverse possession:-
- (a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner;
- (b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;
- (c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and
- (d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed.
- It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff.
- 13. … When a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual ownerof the property is. Secondly, he must plead that he was in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years to the original owner’s knowledge….”
If it is not SURE for the claimant who is the true owner, 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: .
- T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59;
- Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, 2020-11 SCC 263, AIR 2020 SC 46)
Conclusion
- Adverse possession, under Indian law, is generally expressed in terms of an intention to possess (animus possidendi).
- It is further qualified by the requirement that such possession must be nec precario, i.e., not by permission (of the true owner).
- In its settled common law formulation (over and above the statutory period fixed in Article 65, Limitation Act), adverse possession must be:
- hostile in character;
- open and notorious;
- manifested through overt acts which exclude and dispossess the true owner; and
- of such a nature as to bring home knowledge of the adverse claim to the true owner.
- The phrase “becomes adverse to the plaintiff” in Article 65 of the Limitation Act supports the doctrines of dispossession and the owner’s knowledge.
- (See: Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779; T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59).
End Notes
1. ‘Adverse’ Possession: Burden – Complete Change by Articles 64 and 65:
Under the 1908 Limitation Act, it was immaterial – whether the trespasser ‘acquired’ right of adverse possession against the true owner, knowing him and bringing his attention to the ‘trespass’ (as required in the 1963 Act). The new 1963 Act casts the onus on the trespasser to prove claims of title by ‘adverse’ possession (knowing him and bringing his attention to the ‘trespass’). For a possession to be “ADVERSE”, under the 1963 Act, it must be one that obviously arose by dispossessing the true owner, admitting his Title (Knowing him).
Under the (new) Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 65), the true owner will lose title only if the trespasser proves ‘adverse’ possession for 12 years. Therefore, the true owner has no burden to show possession within 12 years (as required under the old Act of 1908, under which it was provided that a true owner would lose title if he did not file suit within 12 years of losing title).In other words, the new Act casts onus on the trespasser to prove claims of title by ‘adverse’possession against the true owner (knowing him and bringing his attention to the ‘trespass’).
There is a drastic change by the 1963 Limitation Act, which casts a burden on the defendant to plead and prove adverse possession in a recovery suit based on title. What is in the mind of the claimant of Adverse Possession is decisive; in other words, knowledge of the actual situation by the true owner is not a point at all. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Once the title is established by the plaintiff, unless the defendant proves adverse possession, there will be no question of limitation. See:
- Indira v. Arumugam, AIR 1999 SC 1549
- C. Natrajan v. AshimBai, AIR 2008 SC 363; (S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.)
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph, AIR 2023 SC 3988
- P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59
- K.J. Abraham v. Mrs. Mariamma Itty, ILR 2016-3 Ker 98.
2. Adverse possession No Decree, without Pleading
It is continued in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, as under:
- “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 synonym with adverse possession. Trespasser’s possession is construed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from a trespasser at any point in time.”
3. Ingredients of Adverse Possession (in Pleading)
The following are the ingredients of adverse possession, in a nutshell:
- (a) hostile animus,
- (b) denial of title of true owner – admitting the title of the true owner,
- (c) wrongful dispossession of true owner,
- (d) placing the date of starting of wrongful dispossession,
- (e) some overt act,
- (f) hostile (or notorious) acts must be peaceful, open and hostile to the true owner.
- It is expressed in the classical formulation of adverse possession in the Latin maxim: “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”
- That is –
- not by force: nec vi,
- not in secrecy: nec clam
- not by permission: nec precario.
Note:
- (i) It starts only – “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Art. 65).
- (ii) For perfecting adverse possession, the statutory requirement of ’12 years’ in the Limitation Act, 1963 (particularly Article 65) must also be satisfied.
See:
- Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779;
- T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570;
- PT Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, AIR 2007 SC 1753.
4. Adverse Possession: Law and Classic Decisions of the UK and US
The law of adverse possession in most Commonwealth countries traces back to English common law and is built around three essential elements:
- Factual possession — actual, exclusive control over the land;
- Animus possidendi — intention to possess as owner;
- Possession adverse to the true owner — without permission, and inconsistent with the owner’s title.
In those countries, the following principles of adverse possession are broadly recognised:
- Possession must be open, notorious, and continuous;
- It must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (without force, secrecy, or permission);
- The true owner’s title is extinguished upon expiry of the limitation period;
- The claimant’s acts must be such as to put the true owner on notice of hostile possession.
Enacted Laws
- India: Governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (Articles 64–65). Title is extinguished after limitation expires.
- UK: Traditional law under the Limitation Act 1980, but significantly modified for registered land by the Land Registration Act 2002, introducing a notice-based regime favouring the registered owner.
- United States: There is no single, uniform federal law on adverse possession. The doctrine is governed entirely by state statutes (often within property or civil procedure codes), so the enacted laws vary from state to state. The statutes across the U.S. share a common structure and typically codify the same core elements.
- Australia: State-based statutes; some Torrens systems restrict adverse possession against registered titles.
- Canada: Varies by province; in some (e.g., Ontario for registered land), adverse possession is largely curtailed.
Knowledge of True Owner
- India: Strong judicial emphasis that possession of the claimant must be open and hostile enough to impute or attribute knowledge to the true owner.
- UK (post-2002): Actual notice mechanisms reduce reliance on “imputed knowledge.”
- Australia/Canada: Mixed approaches depending on title system (Torrens vs. unregistered land).
The formulations of the maxim, in adverse possession, nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, are uniformly embodied in substantive content, though varied in language, in Commonwealth Countries.
The United Kingdom
Now it is difficult and unlikely to ‘acquire’ (title of) registered land through ‘squatting’ (perfecting adverse possession). Because the Land Registration Act, 2002, requires registration of lands acquired through adverse possession. Upon such registration, the original owner will be informed of this matter. The owner can make his objections, if any. He can also repossess within two years after being informed by the Land Registry.
The Limitation Act, 1980: Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1980, provides as under:
- “15(1). No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person.”
- “(6). Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act contains provisions for determining the date of accrual of rights of action to recover land in the cases there mentioned.”
Schedule 1, paragraph 1 provides:
- “Where the person bringing an action to recover land, or some person through whom he claims, has been in possession of the land, and has while entitled to the land been dispossessed or discontinued his possession, the right of action shall be treated as having accrued on the date of the dispossession or discontinuance.”
Schedule 1, paragraph 8 provides:
- “8(1). No right of action to recover land shall be treated as accruing unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run (referred to below in this paragraph as ‘adverse possession’); and where under the preceding provisions of this Schedule any such right of action is treated as accruing on a certain date and no person is in adverse possession on that date, the right of action shall not be treated as accruing unless and until adverse possession is taken of the land.”
- “(4). For the purpose of determining whether a person occupying any land is in adverse possession of the land it shall not be assumed by implication of law that his occupation is by permission of the person entitled to the land merely by virtue of the fact that his occupation is not inconsistent with the latter’s present or future enjoyment of the land.
- “This provision shall not be taken as prejudicing a finding to the effect that a person’s occupation of any land is by implied permission of the person entitled to the land in any case where such a finding is justified on the actual facts of the case.”
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. Graham: Before the Land Registration Act 2002
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. Graham [2002] was rendered by the House of Lords, on adverse possession. This was a matter before the Land Registration Act 2002.
Facts of the case: Pye, the Director of the company, acted through its director. He allowed his neighbours, the Grahams, to use 23 hectares (57 acres) he owned under a grazing agreement. The agreement period ended on 31 December 1983. Pye did not enter into another agreement because he wanted to develop the land. After 12 years, the Grahams sought to obtain it under the law of adverse possession.
High Court Judgment: In the High Court, Neuberger J., held – under the Land Registration Act 1925 the Grahams were the lawful owners of the land as Pye had failed to take possession of this land within the statutory time. There was adverse possession in registered land.
Court of Appeal: The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the High Court and held that the Grahams were only using the land because of the grazing agreement, thus they hadn’t been in possession of it.
House of Lords: The House of Lords in JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. Graham, [2002] UKHL 30, [2003] 1 AC 419, unanimously rejected the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the decision of Neuberger J. that found adverse possession. It was observed by the House of Lords that the intention of the squatter (of excluding the owner) is decisive, not that of the true owner.
- Note: This principle is followed in the celebrated decision, P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.), AIR 2007 SC 1753: (2007) 6 SCC 59.
- (Also referred to in Rajendra Nagar Adarsh Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2013-11 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, 2011-10 SCC 404; Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009-16 SCC 517; M/s Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. M/s Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 2008-17 SCC 769)
- Also Note: The later case, J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom, which addressed a different question (whether UK adverse possession law violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property) was overruled in appeal, by the Fourth Section (Chamber) of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. Graham proceeded as under:
- “43 A similar manifestation of the same heresy is the statement by Sir Nathaniel Lindley MR in Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19, 23 that the paper owners
- “could not be dispossessed unless the plaintiffs obtained possession themselves; and possession by the plaintiffs involves an animus possidendi–i e, occupation with the intention of excluding the owner as well as other people”.
- This requirement of an intention to exclude the owner as well as everybody else has been repeated in subsequent cases. In Powell’s case 38 P & CR 452, 471-472, Slade J found difficulty in understanding what was meant by this dictum since a squatter will normally know that until the full time has run, the paper owner can recover the land from him. Slade J reformulated the requirement (to my mind correctly) as requiring an
- “intention, in one’s own name and on one’s own behalf, to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow”.
- “45. ….. The suggestion that the sufficiency of the possession can depend on the intention not of the squatter but of the true owner is heretical and wrong. It reflects an attempt to revive the pre-1833 concept of adverse possession requiring inconsistent user. Bramwell LJ’s heresy led directly to the heresy in the Wallis’s Cayton Bay line of cases to which I have referred, which heresy was abolished by statute. It has been suggested that the heresy of Bramwell LJ survived this statutory reversal but in the Moran case the Court of Appeal rightly held that however one formulated the proposition of Bramwell LJ as a proposition of law it was wrong. The highest it can be put is that, if the squatter is aware of a special purpose for which the paper owner uses or intends to use the land and the use made by the squatter does not conflict with that use, that may provide some support for a finding as a question of fact that the squatter had no intention to possess the land in the ordinary sense but only an intention to occupy it until needed by the paper owner. For myself I think there will be few occasions in which such inference could be properly drawn in cases where the true owner has been physically excluded from the land. But it remains a possible, if improbable, inference in some cases.”
The United States – Ewing v Burnet
Most U.S. statutes require possession to be:
- Hostile (without permission)
- Actual (physical use of the land)
- Open and notorious (visible so the owner can notice)
- Exclusive (not shared with the true owner or public)
- Continuous (for the statutory period)
See: Ewing v Burnet, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 41 (1837).
It is held by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lessee of Ewing v. Burnet, 36 U.S. 11 Pet. 41 (1837) as under:
- “It is well settled that to constitute an adverse possession, there need not be a fence, building, or other improvement made; it suffices for this purpose that visible and notorious acts of ownership are exercised over the premises in controversy for twenty-one years after an entry under claim and color of title. So much depends on the nature and situation of the property, the uses to which it can be applied or to which the owner or claimant may choose to apply it, that it is difficult to lay down any precise rule adapted to all cases. But it may with safety be said that where acts of ownership have been done upon land which from their nature indicate a notorious claim of property in it and are continued for twenty-one years with the knowledge of an adverse claimant, without interruption, or an adverse entry by him for twenty-one years, such acts are evidence of an ouster of a former owner and an actual adverse possession against him if the jury shall think that the property was not susceptible of a more strict or definite possession than had been so taken and held.”
U.S. Statutes in various States
California
- Governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 325
- Requires:
- 5 years’ continuous possession
- Payment of property taxes
- Claim often supported by color of title
New York
- Governed by the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 501–551
- Statutory period: 10 years
- 2008 reforms clarified “hostility” and limited claims based on minor encroachments
Texas
- Governed by the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 16.021–16.030
- Multiple limitation periods:
- 3 years (with title or color of title)
- 5 years (with tax payment and deed)
- 10 years (bare possession)
- Up to 25 years in some cases
Florida
- Governed by the Florida Statutes § 95.16 and § 95.18
- Distinguishes between:
- With color of title
- Without color of title (requires tax payment and filing)
Illinois
- Governed by the Illinois Compiled Statutes 735 ILCS 5/13-101
- Period: 20 years (general rule)
5. Should Unobstructed Possession Subsist for 12 Years Immediately Preceding the Suit?
No.
Where adverse possession has already ripened into title (by continuous, open, and peaceable possession for a period of 12 years), it is not necessary that such unobstructed possession should subsist for the 12 years immediately preceding the suit. Subsequent disturbance or obstruction within a period (whether 1 year or 5 or 11 years) before the suit is immaterial.
That is, if the claimant has lost possession after perfection, he must have sued for recovery within 12 years from dispossession. (See: Nair Service Society Ltd v. Rev. Father K. C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165, 1968 (3) SCR 1630) It can be explained in this way –
- Perfection of title — claimant becomes owner
- Later dispossession — fresh limitation starts
- Suit within 12 years of that dispossession — maintainable
Adverse Possession – ‘Inchoate’ (Here Indicates, Unadjudicated)
- Title ripens by operation of law; court only recognises it.
- Under the Limitation Act, once the claimant establishes continuous, open, and hostile possession for 12 years, the true owner’s title stands extinguished and the possessor’s title is perfected. This occurs by operation of law, not by decree; a court does not create the title but merely declares it.
- ‘Inchoate’: Here indicates unadjudicated, not legally incomplete.
- The description of adverse possession as “inchoate” is only a practical expression that the claim has not yet been judicially determined. It does not mean that the right is legally incomplete once the statutory period has run.
- The 12 years need not be immediately before the suit
- It is therefore not necessary that the 12-year period should extend up to the date of the suit.
- If title is already ripened earlier, the claimant is, in law, the owner from that point onwards.
- Therefore, it is necessary to show the beginning of the 12-year period.
- Later disturbances after perfection of title do not matter unless they amount to dispossession.
| Read Book No. 5 |
Saji Koduvath Associates 