Limitation For Adverse Possession Starts From When Possession Becomes Adverse, Not From When Plaintiff Got Ownership : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (Oct. 14) observed that the period of limitation to prove title by adverse possession would commence from the date of the defendant's possession becoming adverse and not from when the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar heard a matter where the defendant claimed an adverse possession over the plaintiff's property (as a lessee) from the date when the plaintiff became the property owner (1968). The defendant contended that since the suit for dispossessing the defendants from the peaceful enjoyment of the suit property was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1986 therefore the suit would be barred by limitation when calculated from the year 1968 as it wasn't filed within 12 years.

Rejecting the defendant's claim of adverse possession, the Court approved the High Court's decision which had relied on the case of Saroop Singh v. Banto and Ors. (2005) to hold that “once the plaintiff proves his title over suit property it is for the defendant resisting the same claiming adverse possession that he perfected title through adverse possession and in that regard, in terms of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the starting point of limitation would not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but would commence only from the date the defendant's becomes adverse.”

The Court also observed that when the defendant was holding possession of the suit property as a lessee then he could not claim an adverse possession over the property because the defendant's possession could only be termed as 'permissive possession'.

Reference was made to the case of Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs. v. Sudesh Kumar alias Suresh Kumar (D) through LRs. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17 where while considering the question of whether tenants of the original owner could claim adverse possession against a transferee of the landlord, the Court held that "tenants or lessees could not claim adverse possession against their landlord/lessor, as the nature of their possession is permissive in nature."

Further, in this case, the defendant didn't meet the conditions to qualify its possession as adverse to the plaintiff because it failed to prove that he perfected title through adverse possession which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.

“In the case on hand, the evidence on the part of the defendants/appellants herein would reveal that instead of establishing 'animus possidendi' under hostile colour of title they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the plaintiff which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.”, the court observed.

“Upon considering the evidence on the part of the appellants herein (the defendants), we have no hesitation to hold that the requirements to co-exist to constitute adverse possession are not established by them. So also, it can only be held that the reckoning of the period of limitation from the date of commencement of the right of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land instead of looking into whether they had succeeded in pleading and establishing the date of commencement of adverse possession and satisfaction regarding the prescriptive period in that regard, was rightly interfered with, by the High Court.”, the court concluded.

Also from the judgment - Sale Not A Contract; No Bar To Transfer Immovable Property To Minor : Supreme Court

Case Title: Neelam Gupta & Ors Versus Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 796

Click here to read/download the judgment