Civil suit to perfect my title based on adverse possession

ADVERSE POSSESSION

In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India,

(2004) 10 SCC 779, Justice S Rajendra Babu, speaking
for a two judge Bench held that:
“11… Therefore, a person who claims
adverse possession should show:
(a) on what date he came into possession,
ANSWER 1976 Date I came in possession is the date I finished my graduation at
Mumbai and came to Bangalore and same year I joined my law studies in BMS college
bangalore
(b) what was the nature of his possession,
ANSWER as a co-owner
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,
ANSWER yes the defendant was the other co-owner and she used to come regularly as
her son was studying engineering after paying capitation fees in MS Ramiya college.
After he graduated he went to USA and the defendant and her husband started going
to USA.
(d) how long his possession has continued, and
ANSWER 40 years uninterrupted and undisturbed 40 years
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.”
ANSWER 1989 the brother Vivek bajaj got married his wife went to USA with him and
found out that the husband of the defendant Murli Bajaj was cheating and sending
money to USA the money was going from Vijaywada the project that was being done by
the plaintiff because this stopped taking works in bangalore the defendant and her
husband stopped coming to the suit property and the possession was open and
undisturbed.

CO-OWNER'S ADVERSE POSSESSION

Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead By LRs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2003 ALL SCR 385
Para 30
"28. ’Ouster’ does not mean actual driving out of the co-sharer from the property.
It will, however, not be complete unless it is coupled with all other ingredients
required to constitute adverse possession. Broadly speaking, three elements are
necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner. They are
(i) declaration of hostile animus,
ANSWER
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,
ANSWER yes the defendant was the other co-owner and she used to come regularly as
her son was studying engineering after paying capitation fees in MS Ramiya college.
After he graduated he went to USA and the defendant and her husband started going
to USA.
(ii) long and uninterrupted possession of the person pleading ouster, and
ANSWER (d) how long his possession has continued, and
ANSWER 40 years uninterrupted and undisturbed 40 years
(iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership openly and to the knowledge of other
co-owner.
ANSWER (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” ANSWER the defendant and her
husband used to come till 1989 there after as stated above due to the fights in USA
over money send from plaintiff's Vijaywada project the defendant and her husband
stopped coming to the suit property and the possession was open and undisturbed.
Continued words from judgement
"Thus, a co-owner, can under law, claim title by adverse possession against another
co-owner who can, of course, file appropriate suit including suit for joint
possession within time prescribed by law."
This 12 year time period is over and no case has been filed by the defendant but
now she is claiming partition of the suit property.

Des Raj & Ors. Vs. Bhagat Ram

It may be true that in his plaint, the plaintiff did not specifically plead
ouster but muffosil pleadings, as is well known, must be construed liberally.
Pleadings must be construed as a whole.
Non use of terminology, ipso facto, would not mean that ingredients for satisfying
requirements of statute are absent."
A plea of adverse possession or a plea of ouster would indisputably be
governed by Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act.
We, having regard to the peculiar fact obtaining in the case, are of the
opinion that the plaintiff- respondent had established that he acquired title by
ousting the defendants \026 appellants by declaring hostile title in himself
which was to the knowledge of his co-sharers.

Cores v. Appuhamy [(1912) AC 230)]. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-
heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with
exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so
as to constitute ouster. This does not necessarily mean that there must be an
express demand by one and denial by the other.”

Judgements
I have not appealed but instead filed this suit because GOD came to my rescue in
the form of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in 2019 "CIVIL APPEAL NO.7764 OF
2014 RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS.…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANJIT KAUR & ORS. …
RESPONDENT(S)
This reversed the judgement in Gurudwara Sahib vs Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala &
... on 16 September, 2013 which says
"Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession
as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff
to protect the possession of immovable property
The reversed 85 page judgement judgement say

we hold that decisions of Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala

(supra) and decision relying on it in State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi
Siddh Maharaj (supra) and Dharampal (dead) through LRs v. Punjab Wakf Board (supra)
cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly, thus they are hereby overruled.
We hold that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by
plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the
Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any
rights of a plaintiff.

adverse possession is to be used as shield by the Defendant and cannot be used as

sword by the Plaintiff. In Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat village Sirthala and
another (2014) 1 SCC 669 decided by two Judge Bench wherein a question arose
whether the Plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land, the Supreme Court
by referring to a High Courts' judgments held that even if the Plaintiff is found
to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such
adverse possession has matured into ownership since the plea of adverse possession
cannot be used as a sword.

Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander, 1968 AIR(SC) 1165 "It cannot be
disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and
exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title
against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not
come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period
prescribed by the provisions of the statute of limitation applicable to the case,
his right is for ever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute
title."

Gurtej Singh v Zora Singh(dead) through Lrs & Ors[14] that the plea of adverse
possession can be taken by plaintiff as well.

Karnataka Board of Wakf v Government of India & Others

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Waqf Board (supra) regarding the pleadings
to be made by a person while claiming title over an immovable property on the basis
of adverse possession held :-

“Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact
and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what
date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession (c) whether
the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession
has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the
rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts
necessary to establish his adverse possession”

The Court further held that whenever the plea of adverse possession is projected,
inherent in the plea is that someone else was the owner of the property therefore,
the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter
does not begin to operate until the former is renounced.

Dagadabai (Dead) By Lrs v Abbas @ Gulab Rustum Pinjari[15] held that a person first
admit the ownership of the true owner over the property before claiming ownership
on the strength of adverse possession.

S.M. Karim v Bibi Sakinal

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v Revamma & Ors

Co Owner
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Devi v Prem Prakash held that a plea of
adverse possession by a co-owner can be taken if that person is able to prove that
he has ousted all the co-owners from the property coupled with all the other
ingredients to constitute adverse possession. As per this judgment there are three
elements are necessary for establishing the plea of ouster in the case of co-owner.
They are (i) declaration of hostile animus (ii) long and uninterrupted possession
of the person pleading ouster and (iii) exercise of right of exclusive ownership
openly and to the knowledge of other co-owner.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.N. Aswathama And Anr v P. Prakash[16]. In this case a
person ‘A’ was tenant under ‘B’ and ‘A’ subsequently purchased the property from
‘B’ and became its owner. Another person ‘C’ who claims to be the true owner filed
a suit or title and possession against ‘B’ stating therein that he was the true
owner and not ‘B’. The person ‘A’ denied the title of ‘C’ over the suit property by
stating that he became the owner of the property by purchasing it from ‘B’ but in
case ‘B’ did not have title and consequently his claim based on title was rejected,
then having regard to the fact that he had been in possession by setting up title
in ‘B’ and later in himself, his possession was hostile to the true owner i.e. ‘C’;
and if he was able to make out such hostile possession continued for more than 12
years, he could claim to have perfected his title by adverse possession.
Similar reiteration of law can be found in number of judgments of this Court, some
of which are enumerated below Which I have emailed. The judgements are also
available at Hon'ble Supreme Court web site links

1.RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL 60 pages

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/4680/4680_2008_4_1501_15805_Judgement_07-
Aug-2019.pdf
2. Gurudwara Sahib 7 pages
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/40774.pdf

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/14056/14056_2011_11_1501_19663_Judgement_
15-Jan-2020.pdf

3. Co owners
Vidya Devi v Prem Prakash
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/10744.pdf

Nagabhushanammal
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/43448.pdf

Des Raj & Ors. Vs. Bhagat Ram

https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/28665.pdf

Sheru Vs Zannat
https://highcourt.hp.gov.in/viewojpdf/view.php?
path=2007&fname=202300002092007_16.pdf&smflag=N

Mandeep Singh Vs Gian Chand