Summary
A person whose title has matured by adverse possession may sue on that title for declaration, injunction or recovery of possession. Article 65 does not confine adverse possession to a defence. The contrary holdings in Gurudwara Sahab and the decisions following it were overruled. The Court answered the legal reference and directed that the matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for consideration on their merits.
Issues
- Whether a person who has perfected title by adverse possession may bring a suit on that title, rather than use adverse possession only as a defence.
Provisions considered
- Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963The limitation period runs when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff; this does not prohibit a plaintiff from relying on title already acquired by adverse possession. (¶¶ 45–46, 59, 61)
Held
- Adverse possession that extinguishes the former owner’s right confers a corresponding right on the possessor, limited to the right against which possession was adverse. The resulting title may support a suit for declaration, protection or restoration of possession. (¶¶ 53, 55, 59, 61)
- Possession must be peaceful, open, continuous and hostile, with the requisite knowledge and intention. Mere long possession or trespass does not suffice; the plea must establish when and how possession became adverse. Possession of one co-owner is not presumed adverse to another. (¶ 56–57)
- Adverse possession is heritable and transmissible. Successive periods may be tacked where there is privity concerning the same property and right, but independent trespassers cannot combine their periods merely to complete limitation. (¶ 58)
- Prior possession can itself support recovery against unlawful dispossession before adverse title matures, subject to the applicable limitation and the better title of the true owner. Even a perfected possessor may be dispossessed only through due process. (¶ 59)
- Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj and Dharampal v. Punjab Wakf Board were overruled insofar as they prohibit a plaintiff from suing on title acquired by adverse possession. (¶ 61)
- The suggested protection of property dedicated to public utility against adverse possession was a matter for legislative consideration. (¶ 60)
Result
Reference answered: perfected adverse possession may found a plaintiff’s claim as well as a defence. Matters directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for merits consideration; no individual claimant’s adverse title was adjudicated in answering the reference.