Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Constituent of Symbiosis International University, Pune

Transfer of Property Act

Adverse Possession

Submitted By: -

Mihir Ganachari

Division- C

PRN No.16010324235

BBA. L.L.B

Under the Guidance of

Prof. Shrushti Khare

1
 CERTIFICATE

The Project entitled “Adverse Possession” submitted to Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
for “Transfer of Property Act” as part of Internal assessment by Mihir Ganachari is based
on the original work carried out under the guidance of Prof. Shrushti Khare for the
academic year 2018-19.The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree.

Signature of the candidate:

Date: 09.09.2018

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, Mihir Ganachari of BBA. L.L.B would like to convey my heartfelt regards to our respected
Officiating Director Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Dari for his support without whom such activities
would not have been possible. I would like to thank my faculty, Prof. Shrushti Khare for her
guidance and encouraging support.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. PARTICULAR PAGE NO.

1 Introduction 5

2 Distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘adverse 6

possession’

3 Elements asserting Adverse possession 7

4 Statutory Limitation 8

5 When an Adverse Possession cannot be claimed 9

6 Conclusion 13

7 Changes we Need 13

8 Bibliography 13

4
 Introduction

Property is maybe the most essential and the most muddled and broad branch of present day
law. Under this field of law, the rights, cases, obligations and commitments of the gatherings
required with any sort of property turn into the subject of study. Ownership is a standout
amongst the most critical ideas at whatever point an enduring property is being referred to.
Ownership is such a correct which isn't liable to 'possession'. Notwithstanding when the holder
isn't the proprietor, he is as yet secured by the law, if his case is significant or has a substantial
resistance for his possession in order to demonstrate a 'settled ownership'.

The assumption of the law is that each possession begins legitimately .i.e. was tolerant, except
if demonstrated despite what might be expected. Basically, a quiet ownership for period is the
at first sight confirmation of the title adequate for the upkeep of the claim of a gathering, except
if the contrary party can demonstrate a superior title. It is on this guideline on which the
Doctrine of Adverse Possession rests.

An Adverse ownership is started in wrong and is pointed against right. A man is said to hold a
property antagonistically to the genuine proprietor when that individual, willfully ignorant of
the owner's privilege barred him from the satisfaction in his property. According to the
significance given by the 'Webster's Law Dictionary', Adverse possession is a method by which
somebody may obtain title to the place where there is another through specific acts over a
characterized timeframe. Such acts must proceed continuous for the day and age characterized
by state laws, which change by state. When all is said in done, the demonstrations of possession
must be clear, unfriendly, selective, continuous, and under a claim of right, and so forth., in
order to give the proprietor or others asserting privilege to ownership see and a chance to
counter the adverse possession.

Now license, as defined by Section 52 of the Easements Act, 1882 is as follows:

Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or
continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in
the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an
interest in the property, the right is called a license.

5
As defined by Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of
money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on
specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.

The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the
premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.

Adverse Possession:

The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession, i.e. a possession which
is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Possession to be adverse must
be possession by a person who does not acknowledge the other’s right but denies them. The
law establishes that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must clearly
unequivocally through evidences that his possession was hostile to the real owner and
amounted to a denial of his title to the property claimed.

Anyone, including corporations, the federal government, states, and municipal corporations,
can be an adverse possessor.

Distinction between ‘possession’ and ‘adverse possession’

Possession implies dominion and control and the consciousness in the mind of the person
having dominion over an object that he has it and can exercise it. On the other hand, a
possession to be adverse, the possession not by the true owner, but by a person who objects or
denies the right of the true owner and his title over the property. Again, only ‘possession’
cannot constitute the claim of adverse possession. Possession may or may not arise out of
settled right, but a person claiming adverse possession has no right their upon. It is to be noted
that mere user cannot assert such proprietary rights, as also laid down in Framji Cursetji v.
Goculdas Madhoji1.

1
Framji Cursetji v. Goculdas Madhoji
6
The person who contends that he is in adverse possession should admit the ownership of the
true owner. Thereafter, he should prove that he has become owner by virtue of adverse
possession. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the one who asserts.

Elements establishing Adverse Possession

Actual:
Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely
for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is
insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential. A trespass may commence
adverse possession, but there must be more than temporary use of the property by a trespasser
for adverse possession to be established. Physical acts must show that the possessor is
exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise.
Ordinary use of the property—for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling
timber—indicates actual possession. In some states acts that constitute actual possession are
found in statute.

Open and Notorious:

An adverse possessor must possess land openly for the entire world to see, as a true owner
would. Secretly occupying another's land does not give the occupant any legal rights. Clearing,
fencing, cultivating, or improving the land demonstrates open and notorious possession, while
actual residence on the land is the most open and notorious possession of all. The owner must
have actual knowledge of the adverse use, or the claimant's possession must be so notorious
that it is generally known by the public or the people in the neighbourhood. The notoriety of
the possession puts the owner on notice that the land will be lost unless he or she seeks to
recover possession of it within a certain time.

Exclusive:
Adverse possession will not ripen into title unless the claimant has had exclusive possession of
the land. Exclusive possession means sole physical occupancy. The claimant must hold the
property as his or her own, in opposition to the claims of all others. Physical improvement of
the land, as by the construction of fences or houses, is evidence of exclusive possession.

An adverse claimant cannot possess the property jointly with the owner. Two people may,
however, claim title by adverse possession as joint tenants if they share occupancy of the land.
7
When others or the general public have regularly used or occupied the land with the adverse
claimant, the requirement of exclusive possession is not satisfied. Casual use of the property
by others is not, however, inconsistent with exclusive possession. Generally, easements do not
affect the exclusive possession by an adverse possessor. In some jurisdictions easements
exercised by the public or railroad rights of way will destroy exclusive possession.

Hostile:
Possession must be hostile, sometimes called adverse, if title is to mature from adverse
possession. Hostile possession means that the claimant must occupy the land in opposition to
the true owner's rights. There need not be a dispute or fighting over title as long as the claimant
intends to claim the land and hold it against the interests of the owner and the entire world.
Possession must be hostile from its commencement and must continue throughout the statutory
period.

One type of hostile possession occurs when the claimant enters and remains on land under
colour of title. Colour of title is the appearance of title as a result of a deed that seems by its
language to give the claimant valid title but, in fact, does not because some aspect of it is
defective. If a person, for example, was suffering from a legal disability at the time he or she
executed a deed, the grantee-claimant does not receive actual title. But the grantee-claimant
does have colour of title because it would appear to anyone reading the deed that good title had
been conveyed. If a claimant possesses the land in the manner required by law for the full
statutory period, his or her colour of title will become actual title as a result of adverse
possession.

Statutory Limitation

Under the Indian Limitation Act, Section 28 (new section 27) and Articles 142 and 144 (new
Articles 64 and 65) and other provisions deal with the subject. In order to bring a case within
the statute of Limitation, there must be both absence of possession by the person who has the
right and actual possession by another, whether adverse or not, to be protected, to bring the
case within the statute. To acquire title by adverse possession, as evident from Articles 64
and 65 of the Limitations Act, 1963, all that the law requires is that the possession must be
open and without any attempt at concealment. On the relevant date, for acquisition of title by
adverse possession 12 years adverse possession is required. Mere possession does not confer
title of whatever duration it might be. For perfection of one’s title on the basis of adverse
possession one has to specify the date of his occupation of the land in dispute and also name
8
the person against whom he claimed adverse possession. Sporadic possession being common
excites no particular attention. Forcible possession for more than statutory period establishes
adverse possession. A series of isolated acts of trespass with no continuity of possession
would fall short of the requisite; and in fact, there has been interruption, possession during
such interruption must be deemed to be with the person having the lawful right.

When an Adverse Possession cannot be claimed

Time and again the Honourable Supreme Court and many High Courts have upheld that
determination of an adverse title of possession is not purely a question of law but also a matter
of fact. The claim has to be decided only on the material placed by both the parties. Mere
assertions would not be adequate without substantiating the same. Hence, the material should
also contain concrete proof of open, continuous and hostile possession. However, following
couple of instances can pointed out wherein, a claim for Adverse possession of the property is
not maintainable:

Permissive possession:

A Permissive possession cannot be converted into an adverse possession, especially when the
possession is permissive since the inception, unless some overt acts have been done by the
tenant who would have the effect of their denying the title of the true owner. The permissive
character of possession can be inferred from the attendant circumstances, even without direct
evidence. The moment the plaintiff indicates the intention that the permissive possession
should cease, the permissive possessor should desist from entering into the property and if he
does not do so, his continuance would, thereafter, be wrongful and would render him, liable to
surrender possession with mesne profits.

In absence of a rightful claim:

In the case of Palaniyandi Malavarayan v. Dadamalali Vidayan2, it was contended before

Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court with regard to adverse possession by a trust that the
right to trusteeship of a temple cannot be acquired by adverse possession so long as there is no
lawful trustee who could claim to recover the office from the person who claims to hold it
adversely to him.

2
Palaniyandi Malavarayan v. Dadamalali Vidayan
9
Absence of sufficient animus or intention:

It is the intention to claim exclusive title which makes possession adverse and this animus
possidendi must be evidenced and effectuated by the manner of occupancy which again
depends upon the nature of the property. It is well settled that the possession of the agent is the
possession of the principle and in view of the fiduciary relationship the existing between the
parties cannot be permitted to be as adverse.

Adverse Possession in context of Lease:

A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of
money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on
specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.
In short, what the lessor transfers is a right to enjoy whatever property the lessor has in the
immovable property. With the expiration of the agreed period, the lease may be terminated by
means of serving notice to the leasee. But section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
provides:

Effect of holding over: If a lessee or under lessee of property remains in possession thereof
after the determination of the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal
representative accepts rent from the lessee or under lessee, or otherwise assents to his
continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed
from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is
leased, as specified in section 106.

Can a possession during lease become adverse?

The possession taken during the lease cannot be adverse as against the lessor until the
termination of the lease, the lessor being unable to sue for possession while the lease is still
current. No question of adverse possession or of limitation arises when the possession of a
person and their predecessors in title has continued under he leases. The same is a long
established principle.

But in an event where the leasor has asserted an adverse title against the leasor and repudiated
the agreement to lease, he loses his right to apply for specific performance. If a defendant had
a right to maintain a suit for specific performance of the agreement to lease when the suit is

10
instituted, then, it must follow that up till that time he was not holding adversely to the plaintiff
but on the contrary was holding the land under the agreement to lease and such would not give
him any title under the limitation Act.

During the continuance of a lease, the possession of a trespasser does not become adverse
against the lessor. The possession of a trespasser is limited to the lands which are actually in
his physical possession. This rule was first enunciated in Davis v. Kazee Abdul Ham3 and
reaffirmed in Unush v. Raj Narain4.

But when the land in question is a disputed land, and the plaintiff being in possession of this
very land under a lease for more than 12 years, he would acquire a permanent tenancy right by
prescription as his possession will be adverse to the recorded tenants from the very inception
of the lease. But it is to be noted that the lease agreement must be in contravention of the
operative law.

Adverse Possession in context of License:

The occupation of land under a license is permissive and cannot be adverse. A licensee cannot
claim title only from possession, however long, unless it is proved that the possession was
adverse to that of the licensor, to his knowledge and with his acquiescence.

As defined in the Easements Act, 1882, Where one person grants to another, or to a definite
number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of
the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right
does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license.

But the provision does not entail any possession upon the licensee, unlike the case of lease. A
licensee is permitted to use the licensed premises, without any legal right to possession thereof.
Now, as already mentioned in the above discussion on adverse possession, there must be a legal
claim or rightful claim over the property. Therefore, a licensee has no right to continue in the
licensed premises, after expiry of license period. The licensor is not under any sort of
obligation, either to issue a notice similar to one under a lease agreement or to take any other
steps.

Secondly, where the possession of the defendant is permissive in character being under pure

3
Davis v. Kazee Abdul Ham
4
Unush v. Raj Narain
11
license, it is consistent with continuance of plaintiff’s title in spite of such possession, whatever
may be its duration. While adverse possession implies that it is commenced in a wrong and
maintained against a right. When the commencement and continuance of possession is
permitted and proper, referable to contract, it cannot be adverse.

In such a case unless the defendant succeeds in establishing that his possession has matured
into title by reason of his adverse possession for over twelve years, he cannot prevent the
plaintiff from obtaining possession, exclusive or joint, as the case may be, of the property by
means of a suit.

But on the other hand, an adverse possession can be claimed where the licensee assumes or
arrogates to himself the right of transferring the subject of the license, which in fact he cannot
transfer, and this surely involves an assertion of an absolute title and consequently a denial of
the title of the actual owner. In such a case the possession of the transferee must be unlawful
from the date of its inception. Also, if the licensee successfully sets up a title hostile to that of
the licensor after the termination of the license with continuity and required animus, claim for
adverse possession can be, maintained.

12
 Conclusion

In the above study, the concept of Adverse Possession, its elements and requirements for its
valid claim were discussed followed by the discussion on applicability of this concept.
Deciding whether a title can be adverse or not, is actually a matter of both, fact and law. At
initial stage, one may say that in titles arising out of license cannot maintain adverse possession,
but on analysing different angles on case to case basis, instances may come out where the
opposite might be shown. Therefore, exceptions can be discovered against any settled principle.

However, it can be said that in a defence under adverse possession, no matter whatever
agreement or source of the claim over the property is, the various Courts have conclusively
given more thoughtfulness and weightage to the animus possidendi of holding the possession
and rendering of the title an adverse character against true ownership.

Change we need

There is a need to revolutionise this law because it goes against equity. It punishes the property
owners and rewards the temporary possessors instead of doing the opposite. However, till the
change is done, property owners must be aware and be alert over their property.

Bibliography

 Sarathi Vepa.P., Law of Transfer of Property,(Lucknow: Eastern Book Company)

2005,
 Mitra Upendra Nath, The law of limitation and prescription (in British India):
including easements, with an appendix of acts, references to the latest cases and an
index,
 Oxford:Thacker, Spink 1885

13