ADVERSEPOSSESSION InSaroopSinghv.Banto&Ors.[(2005)8SCC330],inwhichoneofuswasamember,this Courtheld:IntermsofArticle65thestartingpointoflimitationdoesnotcommencefromthe datewhentherightofownershiparisestotheplaintiffbutcommencesfromthedatethe defendantspossessionbecomesadverse. Animuspossidendiisoneoftheingredientsofadversepossession.Unlesstheperson possessingthelandhasarequisiteanimustheperiodforprescriptiondoesnotcommence.As intheinstantcase,theappellantcategoricallystatesthathispossessionisnotadverseasthat oftrueowner,thelogicalcorollaryisthathedidnothavetherequisiteanimus.T.Anjanappa& Ors.v.Somalingappa&Anr.[(2006)7SCC570],stating:Itiswellrecognisedpropositionin lawthatmerepossessionhoweverlongdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatitisadversetothetrue owner.Adversepossessionreallymeansthehostilepossessionwhichisexpresslyorimpliedly indenialoftitleofthetrueownerandinordertoconstituteadversepossessionthepossession provedmustbeadequateincontinuity,inpublicityandinextentsoastoshowthatitis adversetothetrueowner.

Theclassicalrequirementsofacquisitionoftitlebyadverse possessionarethatsuchpossessionindenialofthetrueownerstitlemustbepeaceful,open andcontinuous.Thepossessionmustbeopenandhostileenoughtobecapableofbeing knownbythepartiesinterestedintheproperty,thoughitisnotnecessarythatthereshouldbe evidenceoftheadversepossessoractuallyinformingtherealowneroftheformershostile action. Yetrecently,inP .T.MunichikkannaReddy&Ors.v.Revamma&Ors.[(2007)6SCC59],this Courtnoticedtherecentdevelopmentoflawinotherjurisdictioninthecontextofpropertyas ahumanrighttoopine:Therefore,itwillhavetobekeptinmindthecourtsaroundthe worldaretakinganunkindviewtowardsstatutesoflimitationoverridingpropertyrights. WemayalsonoticethatthisCourtinM.Duraiv.Muthu&Ors.[(2007)3SCC114],noticed thechangesbroughtaboutbyLimitationAct,1963,visavis,oldLimitationAct,holding:The changeinthepositioninlawasregardstheburdenofproofaswasobtainingintheLimitation

Act,1908visavistheLimitationAct,1963isevident.WhereasintermsofArticles142and 144oftheoldLimitationAct,theplaintiffwasboundtoprovehistitleasalsopossession withintwelveyearsprecedingthedateofinstitutionofthesuitundertheLimitationAct,1963, oncetheplaintiffproveshistitle,theburdenshiftstothedefendanttoestablishthathehas perfectedhistitlebyadversepossession. AIR2008SC346AnnakilivsA.Vedanayagam&Ors Claimbyadversepossessionhastwoelements:(1)thepossessionofthedefendantshould becomeadversetotheplaintiff;and(2)thedefendantmustcontinuetoremaininpossession foraperiodof12yearsthereafter.Animuspossidendiasiswellknownisarequisiteingredient ofadversepossession.Itisnowawellsettledprincipleoflawthatmerepossessionoftheland wouldnotripenintopossessorytitleforthesaidpurpose.Possessormusthaveanimus possidendiandholdthelandadversetothetitleofthetrueowner.Forthesaidpurpose,not onlyanimuspossidendimustbeshowntoexist,butthesamemustbeshowntoexistatthe commencementofthepossession.Hemustcontinueinsaidcapacityfortheperiodprescribed undertheLimitationAct.Merelongpossessionforaperiodofmorethan12yearswithout anythingmoredonotripenintoatitle.

AIR2007SC1753P .T.MunichikkannaReddy&OrsVSRevammaandOrs CHARACTERIZINGADVERSEPOSSESSIONAdversepossessioninonesenseisbasedonthe theoryorpresumptionthattheownerhasabandonedthepropertytotheadversepossessoror ontheacquiescenceoftheownertothehostileactsandclaimsofthepersoninpossession.It followsthatsoundqualitiesofatypicaladversepossessionlieinitbeingopen,continuousand hostile. AdversePossessionisarightwhichcomesintoplaynotjustbecausesomeoneloseshighright toreclaimthepropertyoutofcontinuousandwillfulneglectbutalsoonaccountofpossessor's positiveintenttodispossess.Therefore,itisimportanttotakeintoaccountbeforestripping somebodyofhislawfultitle,whetherthereisanadversepossessorworthyandexhibitingmore urgentandgenuinedesiretodispossessandstepintotheshoesofthepaperownerofthe

property. Efficacyofadversepossessionlawinmostjurisdictionsdependonstronglimitationstatutesby operationofwhichrighttoaccessthecourtexpiresthrougheffluxionoftime.Asagainstrights ofthepaperowner,inthecontextofadversepossession,thereevolvesasetofcompeting rightsinfavouroftheadversepossessorwhohas,foralongperiodoftime,caredfortheland, developedit,asagainsttheownerofthepropertywhohasignoredtheproperty.Modern statutesoflimitationoperate,asarule,notonlytocutoffone'srighttobringanactionforthe recoveryofpropertythathasbeenintheadversepossessionofanotherforaspecifiedtime, butalsotovestthepossessorwithtitle.Theintentionofsuchstatutesisnottopunishonewho neglectstoassertrights,buttoprotectthosewhohavemaintainedthepossessionofproperty forthetimespecifiedbythestatuteunderclaimofrightorcoloroftitle.

Insimilarcircumstances,inthecaseofThakurKishanSingh(dead)v.ArvindKumar[(1994)6 SCC591]thisSupremecourtheld:"Asregardsadversepossession,itwasnotdisputedevenby thetrialcourtthattheappellantenteredintopossessionoverthelandindisputeundera licencefromtherespondentforpurposesofbrickkiln.Thepossessionthusinitiallybeing permissive,theburdenwasheavyontheappellanttoestablishthatitbecameadverse.A possessionofacoownerorofalicenceeorofanagentorapermissivepossessiontobecome adversemustbeestablishedbycogentandconvincingevidencetoshowhostileanimusand possessionadversetotheknowledgeofrealowner.Merepossessionforhowsoeverlengthof timedoesnotresultinconvertingthepermissiblepossessionintoadversepossession.Apart fromit,theAppellateCourthasgoneintodetailandafterconsideringtheevidenceonrecord founditasafactthatthepossessionoftheappellantwasnotadverse." Apeaceful,openandcontinuouspossessionasengravedinthemaximnecvi,necclam,nec precariohasbeennoticedbySupremeCourtinKarnatakaBoardofWakfv.Governmentof IndiaandOthers[(2004)10SCC779]inthefollowingterms:"Physicalfactofexclusive possessionandtheanimuspossidenditoholdasownerinexclusiontotheactualownerare themostimportantfactorsthataretobeaccountedincasesofthisnature.Pleaofadverse

possessionisnotapurequestionoflawbutablendedoneoffactandlaw.Therefore,aperson whoclaimsadversepossessionshouldshow: (a)onwhatdatehecameintopossession, (b)whatwasthenatureofhispossession, (c)whetherthefactumofpossessionwasknowntotheotherparty, (d)howlonghispossessionhascontinued,and (e)hispossessionwasopenandundisturbed. Apersonpleadingadversepossessionhasnoequitiesinhisfavour.Sinceheistryingtodefeat therightsofthetrueowner,itisforhimtoclearlypleadandestablishallfactsnecessaryto establishhisadversepossession" InNarneRamaMurthyv.RavulaSomasundaramandOthers[(2005)6SCC614],Supreme Courtheld:"However,incaseswherethequestionoflimitationisamixedquestionoffactand lawandthesuitdoesnotappeartobebarredbylimitationonthefaceofit,thenthefacts necessarytoprovelimitationmustbepleaded,anissueraisedandthenproved.Inthiscasethe questionoflimitationisintricatelylinkedwiththequestionwhethertheagreementtosellwas enteredintoonbehalfofallandwhetherpossessionwasonbehalfofall.Itisalsolinkedwith thepleaofadversepossession.Onceonfactsithasbeenfoundthatthepurchasewason behalfofallandthatthepossessionwasonbehalfofall,then,intheabsenceofanyopen, hostileandovertact,therecanbenoadversepossessionandthesuitwouldalsonotbebarred bylimitation.Theonlyhostileactwhichcouldbeshownwastheadvertisementissuedin 1989.Thesuitfiledalmostimmediatelythereafter." InKarnatakaWakfBoard,thelawwasstated,thus:"Intheeyeoflaw,anownerwouldbe deemedtobeinpossessionofapropertysolongasthereisnointrusion.Nonuseofthe propertybytheownerevenforalongtimewon'taffecthistitle.Butthepositionwillbe alteredwhenanotherpersontakespossessionofthepropertyandassertsarightoverit. Adversepossessionisahostilepossessionbyclearlyassertinghostiletitleindenialofthetitle oftrueowner.Itisawellsettledprinciplethatapartyclaimingadversepossessionmustprove thathispossessionis'necvi,necclam,necprecario',thatis,peaceful,openandcontinuous.

Thepossessionmustbeadequateincontinuity,inpublicityandinextenttoshowthattheir possessionisadversetothetrueowner.Itmuststartwithawrongfuldispositionoftherightful ownerandbeactual,visible,exclusive,hostileandcontinuedoverthestatutoryperiod. Physicalfactofexclusivepossessionandtheanimuspossidenditoholdasownerinexclusion totheactualownerarethemostimportantfactorsthataretobeaccountedincasesofthis nature.Pleaofadversepossessionisnotapurequestionoflawbutablendedoneoffactand law.Therefore,apersonwhoclaimsadversepossessionshouldshow(a)onwhatdatehecame intopossession,(b)whatwasthenatureofhispossession,(c)whetherthefactumof possessionwasknowntotheotherparty,(d)howlonghispossessionhascontinued,and(e) hispossessionwasopenandundisturbed.Apersonpleadingadversepossessionhasno equitiesinhisfavour.Sinceheistryingtodefeattherightsoftrueowner,itisforhimto clearlypleadandestablishallfactsnecessarytoestablishhisadversepossession."

AnobservationhasbeenmadeinthisregardinS.M.Karimv.Mst.BibiSakina[AIR1964SC 1254]:"Adversepossessionmustbeadequateincontinuity,inpublicityandextentandaplea isrequiredattheleasttoshowwhenpossessionbecomesadversesothatthestartingpointof limitationagainstthepartyaffectedcanbefound.Thereisnoevidenceherewhenpossession becameadverse,ifitatalldid,andameresuggestioninthereliefclausethattherewasan uninterruptedpossessionfor"several12years"orthattheplaintiffhadacquired"anabsolute title"wasnotenoughtoraisesuchaplea.Longpossessionisnotnecessarilyadverse possessionandtheprayerclauseisnotasubstituteforaplea." AnjanappaandOthersv.SomalingappaandAnother[(2006)7SCC570],whereinitwas opined:"TheHighCourthaserredinholdingthatevenifthedefendantsclaimadverse possession,theydonothavetoprovewhoisthetrueownerandeveniftheyhadbelievedthat theGovernmentwasthetrueownerandnottheplaintiffs,thesamewasinconsequential. Obviously,therequirementsofprovingadversepossessionhavenotbeenestablished.Ifthe defendantsarenotsurewhoisthetrueownerthequestionoftheirbeinginhostilepossession andthequestionofdenyingtitleofthetrueownerdonotarise.Abovebeingthepositionthe HighCourt'sjudgmentisclearlyunsustainable"