In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India revisited the principles governing adverse possession, shedding light on its intricacies and implications. The case, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, (2004), served as a platform for the court to elucidate the core components and legal significance of adverse possession.

Adverse possession, as reiterated by the Court, emerges as a complex interplay of fact and law. Those asserting a claim under adverse possession must demonstrate several key elements:

• Commencement of Possession: The claimant must specify the date when they initially took possession of the property.

• Nature of Possession: It is essential to clarify the nature of possession held by the claimant, whether it was exclusive, continuous, and akin to that of an owner.

• Notice to the True Owner: The factum of possession must be known to the true owner or relevant parties.

• Duration of Possession: The length of time the possession has continued is a crucial factor in establishing adverse possession.

• Open and Undisturbed Possession: The possession must be open and undisturbed, without interference or challenge from the true owner.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that those asserting adverse possession have no inherent equities in their favor. By seeking to undermine the rights of the true owner, claimants under adverse possession face a considerable legal hurdle.

The Court referred to the case of Saroop Singh v. Banto, highlighting Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It clarified that the limitation period for adverse possession commences not from the accrual of the plaintiff's right to ownership but from when the defendant's possession turns adverse. The physical act of exclusive possession and the intention to possess as an owner, to the exclusion of the true owner, are pivotal considerations in such cases.

However, the Court underscored that the principle of adverse possession is contingent upon limitation, as access to legal recourse expires after a specified period. In Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, the Court stressed the importance of adhering to the limitation period when seeking to recover property held under adverse possession.

Modern statutes of limitation, the Court noted, serve not only to bar actions for the recovery of property but also to confer title upon the possessor after a designated period. These statutes aim to protect those who have maintained possession under a claim of right or color of title.

Drawing from Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., the Court elucidated the objectives behind statutes of limitation. They ensure timely initiation of legal actions, facilitate the availability of evidence, and discourage individuals from sleeping over their rights.

In the recent case before the Court, the Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol deliberated on whether a suit for declaration of title was barred by limitation. Ultimately, the Court held that the suit was not maintainable due to limitation, thereby upholding the significance of adherence to statutory timelines.

Case: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR. vs. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs.,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3854 OF 2014.

Click to read/download Judgment.