In a recent ruling on the case of Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph and Others (Civil Appeal 3142 of 2010), the Supreme Court has highlighted key principles concerning adverse possession. The court emphasized that for adverse possession to be claimed, possession must be open, continuous, hostile, and in denial of the true owner's rights. This involves a combination of continuity, publicity, and intention to possess.

The court cited various judgments, including the landmark Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India case, stressing that mere possession over time doesn't automatically grant adverse possession rights. The individual claiming adverse possession must provide substantial evidence to support the claim, alongside the intention to possess the property.

The court underscored that the concept of "animus possidendi," the intent to dispossess the rightful owner, is crucial for adverse possession claims. Possession without this intent doesn't qualify as adverse possession.

The ruling also clarified that the concept of adverse possession is applicable not only as a defense when title is questioned, but also as a claim to establish ownership. Additionally, the court explained that the passing of an ejectment order does not interrupt possession.

Regarding public property, the court highlighted the seriousness of adverse possession claims involving government land, as they impact the state's rights. It emphasized that a plea of adverse possession should be supported with proper particulars and stand on its own merit.

The burden of proof in adverse possession cases was outlined, with the claimant initially shouldering the responsibility of proving their case, and then the burden shifting to the other party to prove adverse possession.

Lastly, the court noted that a state, being a welfare entity, cannot claim its citizens' land through adverse possession.

This ruling provides significant clarity on the principles of adverse possession, emphasizing the need for evidence-backed claims and intention to possess. It underscores the careful consideration required, especially in cases involving public property.

Click here to read/download Judgment