Supreme Court overturns High Court on Adverse Possession: Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah (26 April 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 384

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a person become the owner of a property simply by occupying it for a long time, even if they don’t have legal title? This is the question of adverse possession that the Supreme Court of India recently addressed. The case revolves around a dispute over a small piece of land in Karnataka, where the defendants claimed ownership based on their long-term possession. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the principles of adverse possession and clarified the requirements for a successful claim. This judgment clarifies the legal position on adverse possession, particularly in cases where the parties are related.

The bench consisted of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The judgment was authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case involves a land dispute in Karagund Village, Karnataka. The appellant, Mallikarjunaiah, claimed ownership of several pieces of land, including a 1 Gunta plot in Sy. No. 17/3 (referred to as “the suit land”). In 1980, after the death of his father, the land was divided among the brothers, with the appellant receiving the suit land.

In 1983, the appellant discovered that the defendants had encroached upon the suit land. The matter was initially resolved through local Panchayat intervention, and possession was restored to the appellant. However, in 1992, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership over the entire land, including the suit land, and a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The defendants contested the suit, claiming they had perfected their title to the suit land through adverse possession.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit on 14 January 1999, declaring the appellant as the owner of the larger part of the property. However, it held that the defendants had perfected their title over the 1 Gunta suit land through adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s prayer for a permanent injunction regarding the suit land.

The appellant then filed a first appeal, and the respondents filed cross-objections. The first Appellate Court, on 10 September 2004, upheld the Trial Court’s findings with some modifications regarding the measurement of the suit land.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a second appeal in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court partly allowed the appeal on 14 November 2007, declaring the appellant as the owner of the larger portion of the land. However, it dismissed the appellant’s claim over the suit land, declaring the defendants as its owner by virtue of their adverse possession.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court discussed the concept of “adverse possession,” emphasizing that mere possession, no matter how long, does not automatically mean it is adverse to the true owner. The Court referred to previous judgments to clarify the requirements for establishing adverse possession.

The court noted that to claim adverse possession, the possession must be:

• Hostile: Expressly or impliedly in denial of the true owner’s title.
• Adequate: Continuous, public, and extensive.
• Open: Known to the parties interested in the property.

The Court also stated that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming adverse possession to prove that their possession was adverse to the true owner and continued for a period of twelve years.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in holding that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The appellant contended that the defendants’ possession was not hostile or open and that the suit was filed within the limitation period.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that they had been in continuous possession of the suit land for a long period and had thus perfected their title by adverse possession.

The Supreme Court noted that the respondents admitted the appellant’s ownership of the entire land, including the suit land, by setting up the plea of adverse possession.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the defendants (respondents) have become the owner of the suit land to the extent of 1 Gunta in Sy. No. 17/3 by virtue of their adverse possession over it.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Court’s view of the authorities:

• T. Anjanappa & Ors. vs. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 7 SCC 570*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that mere possession, however long, does not automatically mean it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be in denial of the true owner’s title.
• Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, (2010) 14 SCC 316*: The Court quoted this authority to define adverse possession as hostile possession that is expressly or impliedly in denial of the true owner’s title, and the possession must be adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure of the defendants to prove the essential elements of adverse possession. The Court emphasized that the defendants’ possession was not hostile, open, or continuous for the required period of 12 years. The fact that the parties were related also played a role, as the Court noted that possession by one co-owner is generally considered possession by all, unless proven otherwise. The Court also highlighted that the suit was filed within 12 years of the appellant gaining knowledge of the encroachment.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the defendants had not established the necessary elements for a claim of adverse possession. The court noted that the defendants’ possession was not hostile or open, and that the suit was filed within the limitation period of 12 years from the date the appellant became aware of the encroachment.

The Court explicitly stated:

• “mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner”
• “there was no element of either adversity or/and hostility between two co­owners/brothers because in a dispute of this nature where both the parties are related to each other, the possession of one is regarded to be the possession of other unless the facts show otherwise”
• “the appellant(plaintiff) having come to know that the respondents(defendants) had encroached upon his land in the year 1983 and he rightly filed the suit within 12 years from the date of knowledge, a plea of adverse possession was not available to the respondents(defendants) against the appellant(plaintiff) because 12 years had not been completed by then.”

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The Court emphasized that the defendants had not proven that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous for the required period.

Key Takeaways

• Mere possession of land, no matter how long, is not enough to claim adverse possession.
• The possession must be hostile, open, continuous, and with the assertion of ownership rights to the knowledge of the true owner.
• The burden of proof lies on the person claiming adverse possession.
• In cases involving co-owners or relatives, the possession of one is generally considered possession of all, unless proven otherwise.
• Suits for recovery of possession must be filed within 12 years from the date the true owner gains knowledge of the encroachment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the defendants to vacate the encroached portion of the suit land (1 Gunta in Sy. No. 17/3) and hand over its possession to the appellant/plaintiff within three months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be hostile, open, continuous, and with the assertion of ownership rights to the knowledge of the true owner. This judgment reinforces the established principles of adverse possession and clarifies that mere continuous possession is not sufficient. It also clarifies the position of law when the parties are related. This case clarifies the position of law regarding adverse possession and the burden of proof in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of adverse possession over the suit land. The Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit in its entirety and directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within three months. This judgment reinforces the established principles of adverse possession and clarifies the requirements for a successful claim.