Supreme Court Upholds Adverse Possession Claim in Property Dispute: Krishnamurthy Setlur vs. O.V. Narasimha Setty (26 September 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 949
Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can a person who is not the original owner of a property claim ownership through adverse possession? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a long-standing property dispute between Krishnamurthy S. Setlur and O.V. Narasimha Setty. The Court examined whether possession of a property for a long period, even if the possessor is not the legal owner, can lead to a valid claim of ownership. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The dispute dates back to before India’s independence and involves a complex history of property ownership and claims. Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (KS), the predecessor of the appellants, was a wealthy landlord. H.R. Narayana Iyengar (HR), the predecessor of the respondents, managed KS’s properties as his general power of attorney. In 1942, KS, through HR, purchased the suit properties. On 22 October 1946, KS revoked the power of attorney. In 1947, HR filed a suit against KS for recovery of certain amounts. In 1948, KS filed a suit against HR seeking return of some documents. In 1949, KS, along with his brother, filed a suit against HR seeking a declaration that the suit property belonged to them, alleging that HR was merely a benamidar. Around the same time, HR filed a suit seeking an injunction against KS and his tenant, K. Achyuthananatha Raju (AR), claiming he was the owner of the property.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially dismissed HR’s suit, stating that HR was not in possession and that AR was a tenant under KS. This decision was appealed, and after a remand by the High Court, the first appellate court again dismissed HR’s appeal, confirming AR as a tenant. Meanwhile, KS’s suit claiming ownership was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld. Later, KS entered into a settlement with AR, gaining possession of the land. KS then filed a suit against AR, which was initially dismissed but was later allowed by the High Court, declaring KS as the owner in possession. Subsequently, HR’s legal heirs lodged a complaint, leading KS to file a new suit (O.S. No. 3656 of 1981) claiming ownership through adverse possession. The trial court ruled in favor of KS, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court then remanded the matter to the High Court. After the remand, the High Court again ruled against KS, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the concept of adverse possession. Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows a person who is not the original owner of a property to claim ownership if they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile possession of the property for a statutory period, which is typically 12 years. The court also considered the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically concerning the time frame for claiming adverse possession.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (KS):

• KS argued that he had been in continuous possession of the suit property since 1963, after obtaining possession from his tenant AR, and that this possession was hostile to the interests of HR and his legal heirs.
• KS contended that the revenue records from 1963 to 1981 showed him as the owner in possession of the property, which carries a presumption of truth.
• KS submitted that he had perfected his title by adverse possession, as his possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner for more than 12 years.
• KS relied on the settlement with AR, approved by the Tehsildar, as evidence of his lawful possession of the property.

Arguments by the Respondents (HR’s Legal Heirs):

• The legal heirs of HR argued that KS was not the true owner of the property and that the earlier suits had established HR’s ownership.
• They contended that the revenue records were not conclusive proof of ownership and that the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court’s judgment.
• They argued that KS’s possession was not adverse since he claimed to be the owner through HR’s benamidar status, which was rejected in earlier suits.
• HR’s legal heirs failed to show how they obtained possession of the suit property from HR.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that their possession, even though not based on a valid title, was sufficient to claim ownership through adverse possession. They relied on the fact that their possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner, as evidenced by the revenue records and the settlement with the tenant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether KS was in possession of the land.
2. Whether KS’s possession was hostile to the true owner.
3. Whether this adverse possession had matured into ownership.

The court also considered the sub-issue of whether a person can claim title to the property based on adverse possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014, decision dated 07.08.2019], Supreme Court of India: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence.

Legal Provisions:

• Limitation Act, 1963: The court considered the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, related to the time frame required for claiming adverse possession.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7764 of 2014, decision dated 07.08.2019]* to support its conclusion that a person can claim title to a property based on adverse possession. The Court stated that a person in possession cannot be ousted except by due process of law, and once 12 years of adverse possession is complete, the owner’s right to eject the possessor is lost.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that KS had been in continuous and hostile possession of the suit property for more than 12 years. The court emphasized that KS’s name was recorded in the revenue records from 1963 to 1981, which carries a presumption of truth. The court also noted that HR’s legal heirs failed to prove how they came into possession of the property, further strengthening KS’s claim. The court also considered the settlement between KS and AR, which was approved by the Tehsildar, as evidence of KS’s lawful possession.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments of both sides and concluded that the High Court had erred in its assessment. The Court noted that while KS was not the original owner, his continuous, open, and hostile possession for over 12 years, coupled with the revenue records and the settlement with AR, established a valid claim of adverse possession. The Court also highlighted that HR’s legal heirs failed to prove how they came into possession of the property. The court emphasized that a person in possession cannot be ousted except by due process of law, and once 12 years of adverse possession is complete, the owner’s right to eject the possessor is lost.

The Supreme Court stated: “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.”

The Court further stated: “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.”

The Court also observed: “The legal representatives of HR have failed to show how they obtained possession from HR. Even, according to the case of HR, it was AR who was in possession as a tenant. AR surrendered part of the land to KS and not to HR.”

The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the trial court, thereby affirming KS’s ownership of the property based on adverse possession. The court held that the High Court had not given any cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the property.

Key Takeaways

• A person can claim ownership of a property through adverse possession if they have been in continuous, open, and hostile possession for more than 12 years.
• Revenue records carry a presumption of truth and can be used as evidence of possession.
• The failure of the original owner to take action to reclaim possession can lead to the possessor gaining ownership through adverse possession.
• The plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offense and as a defense.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the principle that adverse possession can be a valid basis for claiming ownership of a property. It clarifies that even if a person is not the original owner, they can acquire title through continuous, open, and hostile possession for the statutory period. This case also reiterates that a person who has perfected title by adverse possession can file a suit for restoration of possession if dispossessed. This judgment does not change the previous position of the law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur, holding that he had perfected his title to the suit property through adverse possession. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the trial court’s decision. This case highlights the importance of continuous, open, and hostile possession in claiming ownership through adverse possession and reiterates that a person in possession cannot be ousted except by due process of law.

Category

Parent Category: Property Law
Child Category: Adverse Possession
Child Category: Limitation Act, 1963
Parent Category: Limitation Act, 1963
Child Category: Adverse Possession
Parent Category: Civil Law
Child Category: Property Disputes

FAQ

Q: What is adverse possession?

A: Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows a person who is not the original owner of a property to claim ownership if they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile possession of the property for a specific period, typically 12 years.

Q: Can I claim ownership of a property if I have been living on it for a long time but I am not the owner?

A: Yes, if you have been in continuous, open, and hostile possession of the property for more than 12 years, you may be able to claim ownership through adverse possession.

Q: What does “hostile possession” mean?

A: Hostile possession means that your possession of the property is against the interests of the true owner. You must be claiming ownership and not just occupying the property with the owner’s permission.

Q: What is the significance of revenue records in claiming adverse possession?

A: Revenue records, which show who is in possession of the property, carry a presumption of truth and can be used as evidence to support a claim of adverse possession.

Q: Can the original owner evict me if I have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years?

A: No, once you have been in adverse possession for more than 12 years, the original owner’s right to evict you is lost, and you may have a valid claim to ownership.