Summary
The defendants failed to prove adverse possession over a one-gunta encroachment belonging to their brother/co-owner. Long possession alone did not establish open, exclusive and hostile ownership asserted to the true owner’s knowledge. Neither side knew the exact extent held until a 1983 survey, and the owner sued in 1992. No qualifying hostile possession for twelve years was established. The Supreme Court decreed the suit and ordered possession restored within three months.
Issues
- Whether the defendants proved title by adverse possession over the encroached land.
- Whether possession among related co-owners and the survey chronology supported the required hostility and duration.
Held
- With the plaintiff’s original ownership undisputed, the defendants bore the burden of proving their pleaded adverse possession. Mere lengthy occupation was insufficient without open, hostile and exclusive assertion of ownership to the true owner’s knowledge. (¶ 19–22)
- Possession among these related co-owners was ordinarily treated as common unless shown otherwise. No evidence established the requisite denial of the plaintiff’s title or continuous hostile ownership assertion for over twelve years. (¶ 22)
- The parties did not know their precise extents until measurement in 1983. The 1992 suit followed within twelve years, and earlier possession was not shown to be exclusive, hostile or known as such. The adverse-possession finding was legally unsustainable. (¶ 22–26)
Result
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment set aside and plaintiff’s suit decreed in its entirety. Defendants granted three months to vacate the one-gunta encroachment in Sy.No.17/3 and deliver possession to the plaintiff.