Whether a claimant of title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963
[ by Legal Era New Network ]The facts of the case date back to 1954 when an individual instituted a suit against the ‘mutt’ for “recovery of possession” of the suit land based on an acquisition of title to land by way of “adverse possession”.A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M.R. Shah decided that no declaration of title can...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The facts of the case date back to 1954 when an individual instituted a suit against the ‘mutt’ for “recovery of possession” of the suit land based on an acquisition of title to land by way of “adverse possession”.
A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M.R. Shah decided that no declaration of title can be sought by any individual on the basis of adverse possession in as much as adverse possession can be used as a shield by a defendant and not as a sword by a plaintiff. The Court while deciding the question reasoned that there was “no quarrel” with the proposition to the extent that suit cannot be based on adverse possession.
The Court further stated that the individual acquired the title by his adverse possession and was entitled to recover the possession. The Court opined that "adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found."
The Court noted that in order to assess a claim of adverse possession, twopronged enquiry is required:
(a) Application of limitation provision of “wilful neglect” element on part of the owner established. Successful application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paperowner.
(b) Specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paperowner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property.
The Supreme Court thus concluded that the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by the individual under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and there is no bar under the Act to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of the individual.
