Holding

Termination of a licence does not give rise to adverse possession unless the licensee makes an overt claim of hostile title.

Summary

The appellant, Gaya Parshad Oikshit, continued to occupy certain rooms after his licence to occupy the premises was terminated by the licensor, Dr. Nirmal Chander. The licensor filed a suit for recovery of possession, and the appellant claimed title by adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court held that mere termination of a licence does not confer adverse possession unless the licensee demonstrates an overt act asserting a hostile title. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that unauthorized possession alone, even for more than twelve years, is insufficient without a clear claim of hostility to the licensor's title. Consequently, the appellant's claim of adverse possession was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether termination of a licence enables the licensee to claim title by adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether mere unauthorized possession for a period exceeding twelve years suffices to establish adverse possession.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1963s. 65

Subjects

adverse possessionlicence terminationLimitation Act 1963Article 65hostile titlepossession suit

Judgment

287 A

GAYA PARSHAD OIKSHIT

v.'
DR. NIRMAL CHANDER & ANR.

January:;,, 1984 ·

[P.N: BHAGWATl, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND D. P. MADON, JJ.]

Litnitatio11 A.ct 1963, Article 65, 'title by adverse ·possession':Clabn of-
Licence tenninated by itotice-Suit for possdssion-Licence to show by overt act that c
.
he is cla1ning adverse title .

The respondents filed a suit for r.ecovery .of possession of the preniises (rorn
the appellant after terfuination of his licence. The appellant cf aimed title _b.Y adverse
possession.

. The High· Court held' that mere termination of the licence of a liccncee does· D
not enable th,e .licence to clalin adverse JJOSsession, unless and uritil he -sets up a
title hostile to that of the liccncer after tennination of hisMicencc, and decreed the
suit for possession.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : I. There ~nust be so1ne overt act on the pa-~1 of th~ licencee indi~ating E
assertion bf hostile title. Mere continuance o( unauthorised possession even for
. a period of1nore tha'n 12.years is not enou~h. [288 bJ

2. It is -not n1erely unauthorised possession on -tenni11atio11 of his licence
t_hat enables the licencee to- claim title by adverse possession but there must ·be
some overt act on the part of the licencee to show that ·he is clain1ing adYerse title. F
It is pos.sible that the licencor n1ay not file an action fur the purpose of recovering
possessic:>n of the prcimises from the licencee after Jern1inatlng his licence but that
by itself can~ot enable the licencee to claim thk:_ by adverse possession·. (288 Cf

. In th. instant case, the High ~ Cou~t was ri~ht •ill taking- the view that the
appellant had not establisPed any title by adverse possession, and that the suit of
the first respondent for recovery of possession of the premises from the appellant G.
was not barr~d under Article 65 of the Lin1itatioil A~t, 1963. (288 E-FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE J.URISDJCTION: Civil Appeal 'No ... J8·)] of 1978.

From the judgment and ordel' dated· 24th August; f~l78 of the H
Allahabad High Court in sec?nd Appeal No, 1287 of _1974.) ·
288 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c;R.

A S, . Markendeya for the Appellant,

BC Afarwala .for the Respondents .

. The Judgment of the court was delivered bv •
~ ..

B. . BHAGWATl: ACTING CJ. We. Jiave'h~ard the learned counsel
on behalf of the appellant and after hearing hi~ and persuing the
judgment ·of the .High Court, we find ourselves wholly in agreement
with the' view t.aken by the. High Court that mere termin~tion of the
licence' of a licencce does not enable the licencee to claim ad~erse
. possession, .unless ·and until he sets up a title hostile io that of the
· C · · licencor after termination ·of his licence,' It is not. merely un·authorised .
·~ possession 011 termination of his licence that enables ihe licencee to ·
·claitn title ):iy adver;e 'possession but there musi be some overt a~t ori
the pat't of ihc licencee to sho~ that he ·is claiming adverse title: Jt
is possible that the licencor may not file an action for the purpose ·of
. recovering possession of the premises from the licencee after termina-
n ting his licence but that by itself cannot enable the licencee to claim
· title by ~dverse jlossession. °There must be some overt act on the
part of the licence<1; indicating assertion of.hostiie title. Mere con-
. tin1iance. of uriauthorised possession even for a period of more than
. .12 years is n.ot enough: .Here in the present case there is nothing to
show that at a·ny time after termination of his licence by Dr: Rama
E Shanker or by tl;e first repo~dent' the appellant asserted hostile title
in hims~lf. The High \ourt was, therefore, rigl1t in t,aking.the view
that t!J..e ·.,ppellanf had not established any title by adverse. possession
and iii that view of the matter," the suit of the first respondent for
recovery of possession of the premises ffom the appellant was not
barred under article 65 which is the only article of the LimitationAet,
f 1963 applicable ·in the present .case. We accordingly confirm the
judg111ent ofthe ]i:igh Co!Jrl and dismiss !lie appeal. ·

·Mr. Markandeya,. learned. counsel appearing on behalf 6f the
. appellant, has urged that the appellant has be~n in possession of the
·premises which consist ofr9oms Nos. I, 4 and 5 shown in fhe Amin's
G map marked l6/5C since his birth and it would cause considerable
hardship 10 him if he wereto be ev.icted from these room.s immediately
and he.has, therefore; requested'that sufficient time may be· granted
fo· the appellant to vacate these rooms. He has also stated that in
the meanwhile the appellant is prepared to give up. possession of room
H No. i but he may .be allowed to continue in possession of room Nos. 4. ·
& 5 for some reasonable period. This is a reasonable request on

'
•
G.P . DIKSHIT v. N!RMA~ CHANDER (Bhagwati, A cling, CJ.) 289
. .
behalf of the appella1it. Jn view of the fact that the appellant ha& A
been in possession of rooms Nos. I, 4 a~d. 5 for a very loi1g perird
I. j. and he has·:, .son who is studying in· school, we a.re' incilned fo grant
. time to the appellant to hand. over possession of. room Nos. 4 and 5,
provided he gives up· possession of room No. 1 ·on or before 28th
February, 1984. If the appellaiif hands over ·vacant and peacefu)
possession of room No.· f and any other portio!ii of the house which B
may be it1 his" own· occupation apart from room Nos: 4 and 5 on or.
before 28th.February, 1984 and he.and his. son file an' affidavit in this
Court on or before t.hesame date·stating-that they are in possession
and occupation of rooms Nos, 4 and 5 and undertaking that they· .
will not induct anyone else in possession or cccupatio'n of these two
rooms and will hand over vac.ant and peqaceful possession of these C ·'
·two rooms to the !st respondent on or before 30th June, 1987, 'the
decree for possession against the appellant in respect of rooms Nos.A
'"and 5 will not be executed untii 30th 5-une,. 1987.· If vacant and
. peacefu(possession of room No, i is not handed over by the appellant
to the 1st respondent on or before 28th February, 19 84 or if the appel-
lant and his son fail to file an affidavit in the aforeswd terms on or D
. before that date, the .qecree for possessi.on will be~ome executable
forthwith. .
• •
· . There will be no order' .as to costs throughout.
'
. '

N.V.K. Appeal <lismissed.

. ..
- '·
. . . I

.•

. , •

. '

"

' .