1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6111 OF 2009

KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) THROUGH LRS.  …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

O.V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. & ORS …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12267  OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2760 OF 2011)

NAGAR COUNCIL SIRHIND …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

BHAGAT RAM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10332  OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10343 OF 2016)

M.E. MUNIRAJEGOWDA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS

SRI UTHANALLAPPA @ UTHANALLIGA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. The instant appeals involve a preliminary issue as to whether

plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession in view of the

interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.   A Three­Judge

2

Bench of this Court in  Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur &

Ors.  (Civil  Appeal  No.7764 of  2014)  has decided  the similar issue on

7th August, 2019, by holding as under:

“56. Possession is the root of title and is right like the property. As ownership  is  also  of  different kinds of viz.  sole  ownership, contingent ownership, corporeal ownership, and legal equitable ownership.   Limited ownership or limited right to property may be enjoyed by a  holder.  What  can be  prescribable  against is limited to the rights of the holder.  Possession confers enforceable right  under Section 6 of the Specific  Relief  Act.   It  has  to  be looked into what kind of possession is enjoyed viz. de facto i.e., actual, ‘de jure possession’, constructive possession, concurrent possession  over  a  small  portion  of the  property.   In case the owner is in symbolic possession, there is no dispossession, there can be formal, exclusive or joint possession.   The joint possessor/co­owner possession is not presumed to be adverse. Personal law also plays a role to construe nature of possession.

57. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements  to  co­exist  at the same  time,  namely,  nec­vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec­clam i.e., adequate in publicity and nec­precario 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 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.   Possessor looks after the property, protects it and in case of agricultural property by and the large concept is that actual tiller should own the land who works by dint of his hard labour and makes the land cultivable. The legislature in various States confers rights based on possession.

58. Adverse possession is heritable and there can be tacking of adverse possession by two or  more persons as the right is transmissible one.  In our opinion,  it confers a perfected right which cannot be defeated on reentry except as provided in Article 65 itself.   Tacking is based on the fulfillment of certain conditions, tacking maybe by possession by the purchaser, legatee or assignee, etc. so as to constitute continuity of

3

possession, that  person must  be claiming  through whom it is sought to be tacked, and would depend on the identity of the same property under the same right.   Two distinct trespassers cannot tack their possession to constitute conferral of right by adverse possession for the prescribed period.   

59. We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another  person  except  by  due  procedure of law  and  once  12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. 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.

60. When we consider the law of  adverse  possession as has developed vis­à­vis to  property  dedicated  to  public use,  courts have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession.  There are instances when such   properties are encroached upon and then a plea of adverse possession is raised.   In Such cases, on the land reserved for public  utility, it is  desirable that rights should not accrue.   The  law of adverse possession may cause harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it would be advisable that concerning such properties dedicated to public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no rights can accrue by adverse possession.   

61. Resultantly, we hold that decisions of Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (supra) and decision relying on it in  State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj (supra) and Dharampal (dead) through LRs v. Punjab Wakf Board (supra) cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly, thus

4

they are hereby overruled. We hold that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.  

62. Let the matters be placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate Bench.”

2. The  preliminary issue involved in the instant appeals is  wholly

covered by the above decision.  In view of the answer, let the matters be

placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate Bench.

……………………..J. (Arun Mishra)

New Delhi; .…………………….J. August 08, 2019. (Vineet Saran)