Party Claiming Adverse Possession Must Know Who The Actual Owner Of Property Is: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek ownership over the property based on the claim of an adverse possession if he fails to prove (i) who was the actual owner of the property and (ii), an uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years was in the original owner's knowledge.

Affirming the findings of the High Court and Trial Court, the Bench Comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the plaintiff wouldn't be entitled to claim the benefit of the adverse possession of the property if he failed to disclose the material averments in the plaint proving his adverse possession on the property.

“When a party claims adverse possession, he must know who the actual owner of the property is. Secondly, he must plead that he was in open and uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years to the original owner's knowledge. These material averments are completely absent in the plaint. Therefore, there is no proper foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaint.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka said.

The court has recapitulated the settled position of law with respect to claim the ownership of the property based on the adverse possession.

“To prove the plea of adverse possession:

(a) The plaintiff must plead and prove that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner;

(b) The plaintiff must plead and establish that the factum of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;

(c) The plaintiff must also plead and establish when he came into possession; and

(d) The plaintiff must establish that his possession was open and undisturbed.”

“It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for a period of more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff.”, the court added.

In the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove the actual owner of the property against whom the claim of the adverse possession was sought, and also the adverse possession of the plaintiff was not known to the actual owner of the property. However, the defendant/respondent opposed the plaintiff's claims and sought his dispossession from the property while stating that they had purchased the property from the persons upon whom the property is devolved based on the settlement deed after the death of the original owner.

The trial court and High Court found out that the case of the plaintiff/Appellant to claim ownership based on adverse possession is not sufficiently proved after it found out the following facts which weakens the Appellant's claim: -

1. The plaintiff couldn't prove the actual owner of the property to whom it is known that the plaintiff was in adverse possession of the property for more than 12 uninterrupted years.

2. Further, the bills of the property tax and water tax stood in the name of the original owner. Not a single document was produced by the plaintiff to support its claim that it had paid house tax.

3. The High Court has noted that the plaintiff took no steps to repair the portion in the dilapidated condition.

4. The High Court has recorded a finding that water tax and sewage tax were not paid for years together.

After perusing the findings of the High Court, the court observed as follows:

“Therefore, the High Court held that the plaintiff could not establish that his adverse possession commenced from a particular date. The Trial Court and High Court rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his plea of adverse possession. In fact, as stated earlier, there was no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plant itself. Therefore, the suit for declaration of ownership by the plaintiff must fail.”

The court found the plaintiff/appellant a 'trespasser' and holds the title of the defendant/respondent as a valid title over the property, even though no probate certificate is produced by them.

“Even considering the failure to obtain probate or a letter of administration, it is obvious that the defendants have a better title to the suit property than the plaintiff, a trespasser. Therefore, it is not possible to find fault with the concurrent judgments recording a finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove his adverse possession. Thus, the appeals must fail.”, the court stated.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Mr. Arunagiri, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR

Case Title: M. Radheshyamlal versus V Sandhya and Anr. Etc.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 245

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment