Supreme Court Upholds Concurrent Findings Against Adverse Possession Claim: M. Radheshyamlal vs. V. Sandhya (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 18, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 214

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a person claim ownership of a property simply by possessing it for a long time, even if they don’t have a legal title? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a claim of adverse possession. The Court examined whether the plaintiff had successfully proven their claim to ownership based on continuous possession of the property, despite not being the legal owner. This judgment clarifies the requirements for establishing adverse possession and underscores the importance of proper legal procedures in property disputes. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property originally owned by Sungani Bai, who passed away in 1947. In 1945, Sungani Bai executed a registered settlement deed, dividing the property among three individuals: Gopu Bai, Abbey Karan Joshi, and Vijay Kishan Bohra. Each was granted a 1/3rd share with specific conditions for their heirs. Gopu Bai’s share was to pass to her daughters for their lifetime and then to their male children. Abbey Karan Joshi’s share was to pass to his male children, and Vijay Kishan Bohra’s share was to pass to his male children. The plaintiff, M. Radheshyamlal, claimed that he and his family had been in continuous possession of the property for 45 years and thus had acquired ownership through adverse possession. The defendants, V. Sandhya and others, had purchased the property in 2001 from the successors of the original beneficiaries of the 1945 settlement deed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The City Civil Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, M. Radheshyamlal, and decreed the suit filed by the defendants, V. Sandhya and others, granting them possession of the property. The suit filed by the plaintiff that he was not bound by the eviction order was decreed. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit for adverse possession, setting aside the Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession. The High Court dismissed all three appeals filed by the plaintiff, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal issue in this case revolves around the concept of adverse possession. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to explain the requirements for a successful claim of adverse possession. The Court cited the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple -5 J.) v. Suresh Das [ (2020) 1 SCC 1 ], which stated that 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. The Court also relied on Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India and Ors. [(2004) 10 SCC 779], which outlined that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the possession must be “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” – peaceful, open, and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, publicity, and extent to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The court also emphasized that a person claiming adverse possession must show when they came into possession, the nature of their possession, whether the fact of possession was known to the true owner, how long the possession continued, and that the possession was open and undisturbed.

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiff) Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the settlement deed of 1945 was essentially a will, and therefore, required probate or letters of administration to be valid, which was not obtained.
• The appellant contended that without probate or letters of administration, the defendants could not claim any right to the property.
• The appellant claimed continuous possession of the suit property since 1951, asserting that they had perfected their title through adverse possession.
• The appellant submitted that the defendants have no right concerning the suit property.

Respondents (Defendants) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the settlement deed of 1945 was valid and transferred ownership to the beneficiaries.
• The respondents contended that they had legally purchased the property from the successors of the original beneficiaries of the settlement deed.
• The respondents denied the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession, stating that the plaintiff was in unlawful possession of a small portion of the suit property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the plaintiff had successfully proven their claim of adverse possession.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple -5 J.) v. Suresh Das [(2020) 1 SCC 1]* to establish that a claim of adverse possession requires acknowledgment of the true owner’s title. It also cited Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India and Ors. [(2004) 10 SCC 779]* to emphasize that adverse possession must be peaceful, open, and continuous. These authorities were used to evaluate whether the plaintiff’s claim met the stringent requirements for adverse possession.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that their possession was hostile to the true owner, open and continuous, and known to the true owner. The Court also noted that the plaintiff’s own statements and documents contradicted their claim. The Court also considered the fact that the defendants had a better title to the property, even if they had not obtained probate or letters of administration.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and the law. The Court meticulously examined the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, finding them insufficient to support the claim of adverse possession. The Court also considered the defendants’ claim to the property, which was based on a valid sale deed from the successors of the original beneficiaries of the settlement deed. The Court’s decision was a reaffirmation of the principle that adverse possession is a stringent legal concept that requires clear and convincing evidence.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession was not supported by the facts and the law.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka, and there was no dissenting opinion.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner.”

“A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.”

Key Takeaways

• To claim ownership by adverse possession, one must prove that their possession was hostile to the true owner, open, continuous, and known to the true owner.
• A person claiming adverse possession has no equities in their favor and must clearly plead and prove all necessary facts.
• The burden of proof lies on the person claiming adverse possession to demonstrate that their possession was adverse to the true owner.
• The court emphasized the importance of maintaining proper documentation and payment of taxes and other dues to support claims of ownership.

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession. It highlights that mere possession, even for an extended period, is insufficient to claim ownership. The judgment will likely be cited in future cases involving similar claims, emphasizing the need for clear and convincing evidence of adverse possession.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but granted the plaintiff time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the suit property, provided that the plaintiff and all adult members of his family file unconditional undertakings on oath to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the property to the defendants within one month from the date of the judgment. Failure to file the undertakings would result in the decree for possession becoming immediately executable.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a claim of adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence of hostile, open, and continuous possession known to the true owner. The judgment reinforces the existing legal position on adverse possession and does not introduce any new legal principles. It reiterates the stringent requirements for establishing adverse possession, emphasizing that mere possession is not enough.

Conclusion

In the case of M. Radheshyamlal vs. V. Sandhya, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff had failed to prove their claim of adverse possession. The Court emphasized that a claim of adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence of hostile, open, and continuous possession known to the true owner. The Court granted the plaintiff time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to the filing of unconditional undertakings.