Thursday, March 21, 2024

Adverse Possession of Property - Supreme Court’s Ruling

 




Property disputes happen when people argue about claims of ownership and possession. Adverse possession is a legal idea often brought up in these disagreements. It means someone says they own the property because they've been using it for a long time, even if they didn't originally own it.

Once more, the Supreme Court clarifies how adverse possession works and how it helps settle these arguments.

The case revolves around a property dispute in Chennai, originally owned by Sungani Bai, who passed away in 1947. In 1945, Sungani Bai divided the property among three individuals using a registered settlement deed as she had no legal heirs. Subsequently, Radheshyamlal, the plaintiff in this case also the legal heir of one of the individuals who received a 1/3rd share of the property from the settlement deed, claims to have been in continuous possession of the property since 1950. Radheshyamlal filed a lawsuit seeking ownership declaration through adverse possession against both the remaining property sharers and the purchasers who acquired the property from other sharers.

In the recent judgment by the Supreme Court, M. Radheshyamlal Vs. V. Sandhya and Anr. Etc.(Civil Appeal Nos. 4322 - 4324 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19059-19061 of 2014), the settled position of law regarding adverse possession of the property was reiterated. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show:
  1. on what date he came into possession,
  2. what was the nature of his possession i.e. that he was claiming possession adverse to the true owner,
  3. whether the fact of his long and continuous possession was known to the true owner;
  4. how long his possession has continued, and
  5. his possession was "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous.
It is a settled law that by pleading adverse possession, a party seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner, and therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After all, the plea is based on continuous wrongful possession for more than 12 years. Therefore, the facts constituting the ingredients of adverse possession must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma [(1996) 8 SCC 128.]

In the case of Radheshyamlal, he failed to establish crucial elements necessary for a successful claim of adverse possession before the Court. The key findings of the Court are:
  • The plaintiff's pleadings lacked the essential details required to substantiate a claim of adverse possession. There was no mention of hostile possession against the true owner or evidence of continuous possession before 1950.
  • The plaintiff's own statements, including a complaint filed before the suit, contradicted the claim of uninterrupted possession since 1950. Inconsistencies in the plaintiff's assertions undermined the credibility of their claim.
  • The court emphasized the importance of proving possession adverse to the true owner, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate convincingly. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of maintaining the property or paying taxes, further weakening their case.

Ultimately, on March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeals and upheld the decree for possession in favour of the defendants.