Summary
A claimant relied on altered land records to assert adverse possession and invalidate subsequent sale deeds. The Court held that the suspicious entries, missing foundational pleadings and evidence of the purchaser’s possession defeated the claim. It restored the first appellate court’s dismissal, finding the High Court’s contrary reassessment unsustainable.
Issues
- Whether the claimant proved open, hostile and uninterrupted possession for the required period.
Held
- The adverse-possession claimant bears the burden of pleading and proving when and how possession began, its hostile character, the owner’s knowledge, and open and uninterrupted continuance for the requisite period. Mere possession is insufficient; the issue combines fact and law. (¶ 13)
- Corrections in red ink were unexplained by any evidence of the required inquiry or notice. The related employees’ criminal acquittal on benefit of doubt or departmental exoneration on procedural grounds did not resolve the civil issue, which turned on the preponderance of probabilities. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The first appellate court’s finding that the purchaser obtained possession was supported by land records and the commissioner’s report. The High Court overlooked material evidence and the deficient origin pleading. Actual transfer of possession to the purchaser also defeated the asserted uninterrupted twelve-year period. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
Result
The appeals were allowed. The High Court judgment was set aside, the first appellate order dated 8 August 1997 restored, and the adverse-possession suit dismissed.