Holding

A claim of title by adverse possession cannot succeed without animus possidendi at the start of possession and continuous hostile possession for the statutory period; mere long possession does not ripen into title.

Summary

The respondents bought land from the Corporation of Madras, which was later mistakenly transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and allotted to the appellant under a slum‑clearance scheme. The respondents obtained a writ directing the denotification of the area as a slum, but the High Court set aside the direction to hand over possession to them. The respondents then sued for recovery of possession; the trial court held the appellant had acquired title by adverse possession and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. On appeal, the High Court ordered the appellant to deliver possession to the respondents. The appellant argued that she had possessed the land for over 60 years and thus had acquired title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that a claim of adverse possession requires animus possidendi at the commencement of possession and continuous hostile possession for the statutory period; mere long possession without such animus does not confer title. The Court affirmed that the Division Bench’s findings on title were res judicata and that the limitation provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applied, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant acquired title to the land by adverse possession.
Whether animus possidendi must be present at the commencement of possession for a claim of adverse possession.
Whether the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, bars the appellant’s claim.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to deliver possession to the respondents.
Whether the earlier judgments of the High Court constitute res judicata.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 65 (Schedule)

Subjects

adverse possessionanimus possidendilimitationArticle 65res judicataslum clearanceproperty titlepossessioncivil suit

Judgment

ANNAKILI A
v.
A. VEDANAYAGAM AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

"'T Adverse possession-Mere possession of land is not enough-
Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to
the title of the true owner-For said purpose, not only animus c
possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to
exist at the commencement ofpossession-He must continue in said
capacity for the periodprescribed under the Limitation Act-Mere long
possession for a period ofmore than 12 years without anything more
does not ripen into a title-Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65. D

Respondents purchased certain property from the Corporation of
Madras. The property was later designated as a slum area and
transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, which after
undertaking certain development activities thereon, allotted it to E
Appellant Respondents filed writ petition before High Court seeking
direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to denotify the property in
question as a slum area which was allowed by a Single Judge. The said
fmding of the Single Judge was not overturned by the Division Bench
in writ appeal, which while upholding the title of the Respondents in F
> >''
relation to the said property, held thatthe Single Judge was not correct
in directing handing over of possession of the suit properties in favour
of the Respondents, although the Appellant was in possession thereof.
The Government ofTamil Nadu cancellCd the earlier notification
G
notifying the property in que8tion as slum area. Respondents, thereafter,
flied civil suit seeking re£overy ofpossession ofthe property in question
""' ---4 which was dismissed on the ground that the suit property had been in
occupation of the Appellants for a long time and that they have acquired
517 H
.....-·~\,
:
-~
,,.
... , '
,
.
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A title by adverse possession. The suit was also held to be barred by
limitation. High Court, however, allowed appeal and directed the
App.ellant to deliver possession of the property to the Respondents.

Appellant contended before this Court that the High Court
proc~eded on an erroneous basis that the title of the suit property was
B
not in' dispute and that it also committed a serious er~or in opining that
the Appellant had no animus to possess the suit property adverse to
the interest of the Respondent. It was contended that the evidences on
record showed that the Appellants had been in continu~us possession ""
form? re than 60 years and, thus, they had perfected their title by adverse
c possession.
to

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The title of the land was with Corporation of Madras.
D The Corporation had transferred the suit property in favour of Mr.
Krishnadoss Lala. Despite the fact that the Corporation of Madras had
divested itself of the said property, it erroneously transferred the same
in favour ofTamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 1.12.1973. Pursuent
thereto, certain development activities were taken by the Board. At that
E point of time, Shri Krishnadoss Lala submitted a representation to the
Corporation of Madras stating that although the property belonged to
him, the same was illegally transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum '
Clearance Board. The Corporation accepted the said mistake on its part
and informed the Tamil Nadu - Slum Clearance
,
Board thereabout. A
F request was made to the Boar~ to exclude the said property from the
list of properties o-wned by the Slum Clearance Board. The predecessors ~ ~

and representatives of the respondent thereafter paid the development
charges incurred by the Slum Clearance Board. A request was made
· by the Board to deO'ofify the Slum area but the State did not take any
G action thereupon. It was in the aforementioned factualscenario, the writ
petition was filed. [P.~ras 16and17] [525-G-H; 526-A-C]

1.2. AppeUant had been claiming title only on the basis of purported ~ - "

settlement made in their favour by the Tamil Nadu Shim Clearance
Board. It waS-not their case that even prior to 1.12.1972 when the area
H
..,
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA YAGAM 519

was declared as slum area, they have acquired title by adverse A
possession. Therefore, the Corporation of Madras or Tamil Nadu Slum
Clearance Board did not have any title in the suit property. They could
not have transferred any right, title and interest in the said land to tlie
appellants and others similarly situated. It was under the said title,
therefore, the appellant and others had been claiming the land. They B
had been paying instalments to the Slum Clearance Board. In the writ
petition filed by the appellants and others, a prayer was made for
issuance of direction to the Slum Clearance Board to accept instalments
from them. The said writ petition was dismissed.
[Paras 17and19] [526-C-D; 527-A-B~ C
1.3. Even in the said writ petition, the appellant did not claim any
independent right on the basis of adverse possession or otherwise.
Noticeably the writ application filed by the Respondents directing th~
Government of Tamil Nadu to issue a notification denotifying the area D
as Slum area was allowed by the Single Judge. The said finding of the
Single Judge was not overturned. The Division Bench, while upholding
the title ofthe respondents in relation to the said land, was of the opinion
that the Single Judge was not correct in directing handing over of
possession of the suit properties in favour of the respondents, although E
the appellant and persons similarly situated were in possession thereof~
In the aforementioned premise, it was not necessary for the respondents,
to file a suit for a declaration of their title. Appellant had preferred the.
said appeal. The decision of the Division Bench was rendered in,
presence of the appellant. The judgment of the Division Bench of the, F
High Court operates as res judicata. The finding in regard to the title of
the respondents had attained finality. [Para 20] [527-G-H; 528-A-B]

2. It was not obligatory on the part of the respondent to file a suit '
for declaration of their title also. As the title of the respondents in the '
suit property had already been adjudicated upon, a suit for recovery of , G
possession on the basis of the said title attracted Article 65 of the
Schedule appended to the Limitation Act 1963. In terms of the said ·
provision, it was for the appellant to show that she and her predecessor ,
had been in possession of the suit property on the basis of the hostile .
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

4

A title and as a result whereof the title of the plaintiff-respondent
extinguished. (Para21] (528-C-D]
3. Claim by adverse possession has two elements : (1) the
possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and
B (2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession foi: a perio~ of
12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite
ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of
law that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory
title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and
C hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose,
not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must
be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must
continue in said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation
Act. Mere long possession for a period of more than 12 years without
D anything more do not ripen into a title. [Para 22] (528-E-G]
Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors., [2005) 8 SCC 330; T Anjanappa &
Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006)8 SCALE 624; P. T Munichikkanna
Reddy & Ors. v. Revamma & Ors., (2007] 6 SCC 59 and M Duraiv.Muthu
& Ors., (2007) 3SCC114, referred to.
E
4. Appellant did not raise any claim on adverse possession prior
to the filing ofthe aforementioned writ appeal. She and her husband has
been claiming title only through or under the Board. No independent
title was claimed. Respondents, on the one hand and the Corj)oration
F ofMadras, Slum Board and the Government ofTamil Nadu oli the other
were litigating since 1973. They accepted the title of the respondents. ~ ,
Respondents also reimbursed the Board in regard to the expenditure
incurred by them. In the aforementioned fact situation, it is not possible
to hold that the Division Bench posed unto itself a wrong question
G leading to a wrong answer or the appellant had acquired title by adverse
possession or othenvise. (Para 27) (530-D-F] · ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4880 of ~ .,. .
2007.

H
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.1.2006 of the High Court of
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA YAGAM [SINHA, J.] 521

Judicature at Madras in A.S. No. 441/1998. A
Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan and Nikhil Nayyar for the
Appellant.
V. Raghavachari, R. Anand Padmanabhan, S.R. Sundar and Pramod'
Dayal for the Respondents. · B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Plaintiffs-Respondents are owners of the property in question. C
They purchased the same from Corporation of Madras by a registered '
deed of sale dated 19.4.1944. The owners of the property, namely
Krishnadoss Lala and his brother, however, partitioned their suit properties ·
on or about 5.5.1968 whereupon the suit properties were allotted to the
share ofKrishnadoss Lala. After his demise, the same vested in his heirs ' 0
and legal representatives. They, along with one Mohamed Idris and one
K. Peer Mohideen entered into an agreement whereby and whereunder,
it was agreed that the property should be released from the notification ·'
of the year 1973 issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
3. Plaintiffs-Respondent herein purchased the suit properties not only E
from the heirs and legal representatives of the said Krishnadoss Lala but
also from the said Mohamed Idris and K. Peer Mohideen for valuable
consideration by a registered deed of sale dated 30.9.1986.
4. Defendants claimed possession of the suit properties described F
in Schedule 'A' of the plaint therein since 1957. On or about 1.12.1972,
the Government of Tamil Nadu designated an area including the suit
properties as slum area. It was transferred to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance
Board.
5. Pursuant to a scheme undertaken by the World Bank in regard G
to sale of land situated in Corporation Division No.122, Kamraja Puram,
T. Nagar slum areas to the persons who were in occupation of the portions
thereof, the Department of House and Urban Development, Government
of Tamil Nadu issued two GOMs bearing No.1117 dated 27.6.1979 and
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A GOMs No.1100 dated 29.8.1980 in that behalf
6. The suit property was allotted to the husband of the appellant as
appears from a letter dated 18.3 .1981 which is to the following effect :
"In pursuance of the orders stated above, action is being taken to
B allot land extending 18.5 sq. mtrs. In Kamaraja Puram Scheme
Plot No.17 is allotted to you. You have to pay the necessary
amount in the following manner. A sum of Rs.89/- should be paid
along with the application. Later on you have to pay Rs.13/- as
monthly installment (including interest) for period of 10 years. On
C completion of 10 years and after payment of all the installments
the land will be given to you through a sale deed. Besides this you
have to pay a sum of Rs.8/- per month towards development
charges and Rs.2/- per month towards water and drainage charges.
You are hereby requested to apply in the pro forma annexed herein
D
and to execute a lease cum sale agreement document in favour of
Slum Clearance Board within 7 days from the date of receipt of
this notice. If you fail to send this application with advance payment
receipt, it is construed that you are not in need of the land allotted
to you and the same will be allotted to some other person after
E
evicting you from the premises."
7. Plaintiffs-respondents, however, moved the High Court by way
of filing a writ petition in the year 1989 for issuance of a writ of or in the
nature of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to denotify the land
F in question as a slunf area and put them back in the possession thereof.
By a judgment and order dated 10.1.1990, the said writ petition was
allowed. The area in question was directed .to be denotified and the
respondents herein were found entitled to obtain vacant possession of the
said property. ··•
G
8. Appellant arld other persons similarly situated were not parties
therein. They prefeqed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court which was numbered as writ appeal No.272 of 1990. The
Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated
H 21.3 .1990 found the title of the respondent herein having regard to the
}
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA YAGAM [SINHA, J.] 523'

admitted facts in the said proceedings, but upon holding that as the A
appellants have ventured to put forth a case that their occupation of the
property relate back to 60 years which conferred the right to them de'.
hors the said proceedings and as direction to hand over the vacant
possession would result in dispossession of the third parties to which th~
learned Single Judge had no occasion to advert to and adjudicate upol) B
the rights of the third parties, because they were not parties in the said
writ petition, directed:
"Further, there is a grievance, expressed by the learned couns~l
for the parties, that without even a prayer, therefore, the learnep
Single Judge has directed respondents 1 and 2 to declare that the C
property ceased to be a slum area. This grievance is a tenable one
and requires amelioration. There was no prayer at all to the above
effect. The enquiry into that question will take us into a different
sphere. Hence, we do not think it will be in order to make, a
declaration that the property ceased to be a slum area. D
In the said circumstances, we find a warrant to vacate and we do
vacate the directions of the learned single Judge to respondents I
and 2 to declare that the property ceased to be a slum area and
also to hand over vacant possession of the property to the E
petitioners. The prayer in the writ petition to the extent of the
denotification asked for alone could be and is being sustained. The
other controversies with reference to recovery of possession from
the third parties and the declaration with reference to the property
ceasing to be a slum area are left open." F
J r
9. Consequent upon the said decision of the Division Judge, the
Government of Tamil Nadu cancelled the earlier notification dated
1.12.1972 notifying the suit properties as slum area.
10. Respondents filed a suit on 26. 9.1995 which was marked as G
CS No.1485 of 1995 (re-numbered as 14770 of 1990) praying, inter
alia, for the following reliefs : ·
;
"(a) direct the defendants to_quit and deliver vacant possessioh of
the premises mentioned in Schedule B, C, D and E and remove H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A· all structures put up by the defendants and in default direct
. ' the , ,.... ~

plaintiffs to remove the structure and recover the cost froin the
defendants. · · :: "·.:: -, ' · :

(b) to award past mesne profits at Rs.3,60,000/- jointly and
severally towards past mesne profits. 1
'

·B
(c) to award future mesne profit at the rate of Rs.10,000/ per
month jointly and severally.
(d) to award future mesne profit at the rate ofRs.10,000/- per
month jointly and Severally."
c
10. In their written statement, the appellant, inter alia, contended :
(1) That the Plaintiffs have not filed a suit for declaration oftitle
but merely a suit for possession which is not maintainable
inasmuch as the title of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein have
D
been denied in all proceedings.
(2) That the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein _are not the owners of ~"
the property and have not been in possession of the property
from 19.4.1944 onwards.
E (3) The Defendant/Petitioner herein are in continuous uninterrupted
possession and have perfected title by adverse possession.
(4) That the allotment of the Slum clearance Board was only a
recognition given to the Defendants right to continue in
F possession forever."
11. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said suit opining th.at the
suit land had been in occupation of the appellants for a long tit,ne and that
they have acquired title by adverse possession. The suit wa5 <ils9 held to
be barred by limitation.
G
12. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed
the appeal filed by the respondents herein directing the appellant to deliver
possession of the property to the respondents.
13. Mr: Dayan Krishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
H
\
r
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA YAGAM [SINHA, J.] 525

""" r
appellants, would submit that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous A
basis that the title of the suit property was not in dispute.
It was submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in
opining that the appellant had no animus to possess the suit property
adverse to the interest of the plaintiff-respondent. B
14. Evidences on record would clearly show, Mr. Krishnan wol,lld
..,,. submitted, that the appellant had been in continuous possession for more
than 60 years and, thus, they had perfected their title by adverse
possession. It was urged that the Respondents having not sought for any
relief in regard to declaration of their title, the suit will be governed by c
Article 64 and the Schedule appended to Article 65 of the Limitation Act,
1963.
15. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalfof
the respondents, on the other hand, drew attention of this Court not only D
to· the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal
No.272 of 1990 but also to another writ application filed by the appellant
herein in the year 1989 and the judgment passed therein as also in the
writ appeal to contend that in view of the findings of the Division Bench
of the High Court in the aforementioned writ proceedings which was E
disposed of in the year 1991, limitation, if any, would start running only
from the said date and not prior thereto. It was contended that the
petitioner had never asserted any right in them but had all along beiqg
asserting their title under the settlement made by the Corporation of
Madras. F
) .,-
16. The fact that title of the land was with Corporation ofMadr¥
is not in dispute. It is furthermore not in dispute that the Corporation of
Madras had transferred the suit property in favour of Mr. Krishnados~
",
Lala. Despite the fact that the Corporation of Madras had divested itself
ofthe said property, it erroneously transferred the same in favour of Tamil G
Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 1.12.1973. Pursuent thereto, certain
~ ~
development activities were taken by the Board. At that point of time~
Shri Krishnadoss Lala submitted a representation to the Corporation of
Madras stating that although the property belonged to him, the same w~
H

"
1
\.
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
'{'
~
A illegally transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The
Corporation accepted the said mistake on its part and informed the Tamil
Nadu Slum Clearance Board thereabout. A request was made to the
Board to exclude the said property from the list of properties owned by
the Slum Clearance Board. The predecessors and representatives of the
B respondent thereafter paid the development charges incurred by the Slum
Clearance Board. A request was made by the Board to denotify the Slum
area but the State did not take any action thereupon.
17. It was in the aforementioned factual scenario, the writ petition
c was filed. Appellant herein indisputably had been claiming title only on
the basis of purported settlement made in their favour by the Tamil Nadu
Slum Clearance Board. It was not their case that even prior to 1.12.1972
when the area was ~eclared as slum area, they have acquired title by
adverse possession. Indisputably, therefore, the Corporation of Madras
D or Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board did not have any title in the suit
property. They could not have transferred any right, title and interest ih
the said land to the appellants and others similarly situated.
18. We may notice that the appellant, in him writ application filed
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras being writ petition No.7785
E of 1987, stated :

"In accordance with the scheme the slum dwellers of "
Kamarajapuram were provided with the bank loan for constructing
their houses or putting up construction. We understand that financial
F assistance was availed :from World Bank for construction drainage,
toilet and bathroom facilities and as wel~ as for making water 1 \
supply to the slum dwellers ofKamarajapuram. We obtained the
Loan form bank as already submitted through the Slum Clearance
Board and put up new constructions after obtaining sanction from
G the Corporation, and are in possession and enjoyment of our
respective land and superstructure. We were paying the installments
towards sale consideration and towards bank loan and also ~ ~
development charges etc., since 1981."
19. It was under the said title, therefore, the appellant and others
H
,
J
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA YAGAM [SINHA, J.] 527

had been claiming the land. They had been paying installments to the Slum A
Clearance Board. In the writ petition filed by the appellants and others, a
prayer was made for issuance of direction to the Slum Clearance Board
to accept instalments from them. The said writ petition was dismissed. A
writ appeal preferred thereagainst, inter alia, by the appellant herein, was
dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, holding : a
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the materials on record. It is seen from the facts narrated
above, that after 19.4.1944 sale, the property in question does not
belong to the Corporation of Chennai. The transfer of the property C
thereafter to the Slum Clearance Board on 17.12.1973 is only a
mistake. That apart, the owners of the property have said the
amounts spent by the Slum Clearance Board for the development
of the property and had also paid compensation to most of the
slum dwellers for their resettlement. They have also agreed to pay D'
compensation to the remaining slum dwellers for their resettlement
The order directing denotification has been upheld by the Division
Bench in W.A. No.272 of 1990 and the appellants had not agitated
this issue at the appropriate time, when they had the knowledge
of the decision dated 21.3.1990 and also when G.O. was issued E,
on 16.5.1991 pursuant thereto. Civil Suit is pending only for
possession. Under the circumstances, the arguments advanced by
the appellants now are not sustainable, as the same had not been
agitated at the appropriate time. As such, the order of the learned
single Judge cannot be said to be unjust. In any view of the matter, F
in the facts of the given case, we do not find any error or illegality
in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for interference.
The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
20. Even in the said writ petition, the appellant did not claim any
" independent right on the basis of adverse possession or otherwise. We G
have noticed hereinbefore that the writ application filed by the res1xmdents
..,.,.. · -1 herein directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to issue a notification
denotifying the area as Slum area was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The said finding of the learned Singel Judge was not overturned. The'
Division Bench, while upholding the title of the respondents in relation to H
i_ ..
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
~-
A
A the said land, was of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not
correct in directing handing over of possession of the suit properties in
favour of the respondents, although the appellant and persons similarly
situated were in possession thereof. In the aforementioned premise, it was
not necessary for the respondents to file a suit for a declaration of their
B title. Appellant had preferred the said appeal. The decision of the Division
Bench was rendered in presence of the appellant. The judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court operates as ~s judicata. The finding in
'1
regard to the title of the respondents had attained finality.

c 21. We cannot accept the submission of Mr. Dayan Krishnan that it
was obligatory on the part of the respondent to file a suit for declaration
of their title also. As the title of the respondents in the suit property had
already been adjudicated upon, a suit for recovery of possession on the
basis of the said title attracted Article 65 of the Schedule appended to
D
the Limitation Act 1963. In terms of the said provision, it was for the
appellant to show that she and her predecessor had been in possession
of the suit property on the basis of the hostile title and as a result whereof .4,
....
the title of the plaintiff-respondent extinguished.
22. Claim by adverse possession has two elements : (1) the
E possession of the defendant should become adverse to the plaintiff; and
(2) the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of
12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known is a requisite
ingredient of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle oflaw
that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for
F the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the
-...;
land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only '
animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown
to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in said
capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long
G possession, it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anytlring ....

more do not ripen into a title.
,. ,.
23. In Saroop Singh v. Banto & Ors., [2005] 8 SCC 330, in which
one of us was a member, this Court held :
H ''29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point oflimitation does not
}
(

ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANAYAGAM [SINHA, J.] 529

commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the A
plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession
becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayakv. Somnath
Muljibhai Nayak).

30. "Animus possidendi" is one of the ingredients of adverse B
possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisit~
animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the
instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession
is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he
did not have the requisite animus. (See Mohd. Mohd Ali v. C
Jagadish Kalila, Para 21.)"

24. The said statement oflaw was reiterated in T. Anjanappa &
Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr., (2006) 8 SCALE 624 = [2006] 7 SCC
570, stating :
D
"It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession'
however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the
true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession
which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner
and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession E
proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent'
so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical
requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that
such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, ·
open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile F
enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in
the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence
of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the
former's hostile action."

25. Yet recently, in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v. G
Revamma & Ors., [2007] 6 SCC 59, this Court noticed the recent
development of law in other jurisdiction in the context of property as a
human right to opine :
"Therefore, it will have to be kept in mind the courts around the H
~.
'
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1I S.C.R.

A world are taking an unkind view towards statutes of limitation
overriding property rights."
26. We may also notice that this Court in M Durai v. Muthu &
Ors., [2007] 3 SCC 114, noticed the changes brought about by Limitation
B Act, 1963, vis-a-vis, old Limitation Act, holding :
"The change in the position in law as regards the burden of proof
as was obtaining in the Limitation Act, 1908 vis-a-vis the Limitation
Act, 1963 is evident. Whereas in terms of Articles 142 and 144
of the old Limitation Act, the plaintiff was bound to prove his title
C as also possession within twelve years preceding the date of
institution of the suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, once the
plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts to the defendant to
establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession."
D 27. Appellant herein, it will bear repetition to state, did not raise any
claim on adverse possession prior to the filing of the aforementioned writ -\-
appeal. She and her husband has been claiming title only through or under
the Board. No independent title was claimed. Respondents, on the one
hand and the Corporation of Madras, Slum Board and the Government
E of Tamil Nadu on the other were litigating since I 973. They accepted
the title of the respondents. Respondents also reimbur$ed the Board in
regard to the expenditure incurred by them. In the aforementioned fact
situation, it is not possible to hold as has been contended by Mr. Dayan
Krishnanan, that the Division Bench posed unto itself a wrong question ~
F leading to a wrong answer or the appellant had acquired title by adverse ~ '
possession or otherwise. '"""""
)-

i
28. For the views we have taken, there is no infirmity in the judgment t-
of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. '

G B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

.
. (',