Possession and Adverse Possession in Indian Property Law hold immense significance. In this comprehensive article, Join us on a journey to comprehend the essence of possession and Adverse Possession, its role in jurisprudence, the intriguing nature of adverse possession, and the critical Supreme Court judgment that influences it all.

Possession and Adverse Possession: Understanding Legal Concepts in India

1. Possession meaning:

Possession, at its core, signifies control and physical dominion over an asset. It’s not just holding; it embodies authority, control, and your assertion of ownership. Possession isn’t a mere state; it’s power, it’s mastery, and it’s your claim to a piece of the world.

2. Possession in jurisprudence: The Legal Perspective on Possession

In jurisprudence, possession assumes multiple roles. It serves as the foundation for property rights, contractual obligations, and liability. When you possess, you’re not merely a holder; you’re equipped with a legal fortress. The law recognizes your possession as the primary safeguard against encroachments on your rights.

3. Possession Without Legal Title: Ownership Versus Possession

Possession without a valid title deed is an intriguing scenario. It’s akin to having the keys to a treasure chest without legal ownership. The law acknowledges your presence, but it casts doubt on your legitimacy. Navigating this legal grey area can be a complex endeavor.

4. Adverse possession meaning: The Bold Assertion

Adverse possession allows you to transform from a trespasser to an owner. It’s a legal metamorphosis achieved through the passage of time and consistent occupation. It’s audacious, it’s daring, and it’s the legal mechanism that can upend property disputes.

5. Adverse Possession in India: Unveiling Adverse Possession

Adverse possession isn’t ordinary ownership; it’s ownership born from resilience. It’s the process of claiming another’s land through open and uninterrupted occupation. It’s a captivating legal chess game where time becomes your most potent move.

6. What are the five requirements for adverse possession 

In India, adverse possession is governed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. To establish a claim through adverse possession, you must meet five crucial requirements.

The Five Essential Requirements for Adverse Possession:

6.1. Actual Possession :

In the context of adverse possession in India, “actual possession” signifies physical control and occupation of the property in question. The claimant must not merely assert ownership but must have concrete and continuous physical possession. This possession should be evident and verifiable, leaving no doubt that the individual is actively and openly using the land or property.

For instance, in the landmark Indian case of ‘Gurpreet Singh vs. Uppal,’ the Supreme Court emphasized that the claimant must demonstrate physical occupation akin to an owner, such as cultivating the land, constructing structures, or maintaining it as a garden. The possession should be visible and conspicuous to put the true owner on notice.

6.2. Hostile Possession :

“Hostile possession” implies that the claimant’s possession is antagonistic or adverse to the true owner’s rights. In India, this requirement emphasizes that the possession should not be permissive or with the owner’s consent. The claimant must enter or continue to possess the property with the intent to assert ownership rights, disregarding the owner’s interests.

For example, in the Indian case ‘Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur,’ the Supreme Court clarified that adverse possession cannot be established if the possession commenced with the owner’s consent or permission. The claimant must occupy the property as if it were their own, without acknowledgment of the owner’s rights.

6.3. Open and Notorious Possession :

In the Indian context, “open and notorious possession” requires that the claimant’s possession is conspicuous and easily noticeable. It should be so apparent that it would alert any vigilant owner to the fact that someone else is asserting a claim over their property. The possession should be conducted without any attempt at concealment.

An illustration of this principle can be found in the Indian case ‘T. Raja Reddy vs. V. Narasimha Reddy,’ where the Supreme Court emphasized that adverse possession must be visible, open, and not clandestine. Any attempt to hide the possession may weaken the claim.

6.4. Continuous Possession :

“Continuous possession” in India entails that the claimant’s occupation of the property should be uninterrupted for the statutory period, which is typically 12 years. This means that the claimant must maintain their presence on the property without any substantial gaps or periods of abandonment.

For instance, the Indian case ‘R. Sekar vs. G. Selvarathinam’ underscored the importance of continuous possession by explaining that if a claimant leaves the property for an extended period during the statutory period, their claim may be defeated.

6.5. Exclusive Possession :

“Exclusive possession” signifies that the claimant should exclude others, including the rightful owner, from the property during the statutory period. It is not sufficient to share possession with others; the claimant must exercise sole control over the property.

In ‘R. Sekar vs. G. Selvarathinam,’ the Supreme Court of India held that the claimant’s possession should be exclusive and not subject to interference by others, as it would weaken the adverse possession claim.

Understanding these five essential requirements, as clarified by Indian legal precedents, is critical for anyone seeking to establish adverse possession rights in India. These requirements serve as a guideline to ensure that adverse possession claims are legally valid and justifiable within the Indian legal framework.

Read More: Digital India : A Revolution for the Fastest Access to Justice

7. How can one claim ownership through adverse possession?

limitation for adverse possession in india

In India, the limitation period for adverse possession is typically 12 years. This means that for a person to claim ownership of a property through adverse possession, they must openly, continuously, and adversely possess the property for a minimum of 12 years without interruption. Once this 12-year period is successfully completed, the claimant may be entitled to legal ownership of the property, subject to fulfilling all other requirements for adverse possession.

It’s important to note that the specific statutory period for adverse possession may vary depending on the type of property and the jurisdiction within India. Therefore, it’s advisable to consult with a legal expert or refer to the relevant state laws to determine the precise limitation period applicable to your particular case.

8. Adverse Possession important Supreme Court judgment for 2021–22.

• Kesar Bai vs. Suresh Chandra (2022): The Supreme Court held that a person cannot claim adverse possession of a property if he/she has already filed a suit for declaration of title to the same property. This is because a suit for declaration of title is a claim of ownership, and it is incompatible with a claim of adverse possession.
• Ram Charan vs. Krishna Devi (2022): The Supreme Court held that the concept of adverse possession does not apply to public properties. This is because public properties are owned by the government, and the government cannot be dispossessed of its property by adverse possession.
• Narasamma vs. A. Krishna Murthy (2021): The Supreme Court held that a person cannot claim adverse possession of a property if he/she has been in continuous possession of the property with the consent of the true owner. This is because consent defeats the essential element of adverse possession, which is the intention to dispossess the true owner.
• P. Sreenivasan vs. P. Rajaram (2022): The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation for claiming adverse possession can be extended even if the true owner is not a minor or is not mentally ill. This can be done if the true owner has been prevented from taking action to evict the person in adverse possession by fraud, force, or other illegal means.
• Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022): The Supreme Court held that the concept of adverse possession does not apply to agricultural land. This is because agricultural land is subject to a different set of laws, and the law of adverse possession is not applicable to it.
• Krishnakumar vs. State of Kerala (2022): The Supreme Court held that the person who is claiming adverse possession must prove that he/she has been in continuous, open, and hostile possession of the property for the required period of time. The possession must be open and hostile, which means that the person in possession must have acted in a way that showed that he/she was claiming ownership of the property.
• Rakesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022): The Supreme Court held that the person who is claiming adverse possession must also prove that he/she was in good faith when he/she took possession of the property. This means that the person must not have known that he/she was taking possession of someone else’s property.

Conclusion:

Possession and adverse possession are not mere legal concepts; they are the keys to property ownership. Understanding these concepts, their intricacies, and the significant Supreme Court judgment is paramount. Armed with this knowledge, you can confidently navigate property disputes and secure your stake in the dynamic world of Indian real estate. Unlock the power of possession; it’s your gateway to property mastery.