Long-Standing Unauthorized Possession Insufficient To Prove Adverse Possession Unless 'Hostile Animus' Unequivocally Established: HP High Court

"Proof of long standing unauthorised possession can only be a relevant trait for consideration of plea for acquisition of title by adverse possession but cannot be the sole criteria. The underlying principle remains the proof to possess the land of another as owner with requisite hostile animus, as discussed above, and further proof of uninterrupted, open, peaceful continuity of same state for 12 years," Justice Satyen Vaidya observed.

The bench said since, by plea of adverse possession, rightful title of someone is sought to be taken away, a heavy burden lies upon the defendants to prove the plea of adverse possession.

The legal matter in question pertained to unauthorized occupation of a piece of land situated in District Kangra which was challenged by the plaintiff asserting his title to the property.

The trial court framed a set of issues to be addressed, including whether the plaintiff's ownership claims were valid, whether adverse possession had been proven by the defendants, and whether the suit was time-barred.

In the trial phase, the defendants' stance of adverse possession was supported by their assertion that their occupation was not only unauthorized but also marked by hostility towards the true owner's title. However, the trial court's decision went against the defendants, prompting them to file an appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. Aggrieved, the Appellants/Defendants filed the regular second appeal raising substantial questions of law.

Delving into the core principles of adverse possession, the bench focused on the necessity of establishing a hostile intent to hold the land as an owner and the requirement of continuous, uninterrupted possession for a specific period. It added,

"To succeed in plea of adverse possession, the first and foremost requirement is assertion and proof of hostile title by the possessor in denial of the title of true owner. The hostility of title would mean claim to the property as owner by clearly denying the title of true owner. Thereafter, the uninterrupted, open and hostile possession has to follow for the period of 12 years as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the need for proximal time when such assertion was first made becomes relevant."

In this case, the court said that it was unable to find the specific pleading and proof as regards the assertion of title over the suit land and the proximal period therefore that too in clear hostility over the title of true owner. It said the material on record does not suggest that the defendants had ever expressed their specific hostile animus to hold the possession of suit land as owners by denying the title of plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest and hence the defendants cannot be held to have perfected the title over the suit land by way of adverse possession.

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Om Prakash and another Vs Bishan Dass

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 59

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment