Holding

Adverse possession requires a proven positive intention to dispossess, which the appellants failed to demonstrate, so their claim to title by adverse possession was dismissed.

Summary

The appellants purchased a 5‑acre plot by two registered sale deeds after the respondents had earlier bought a portion of the same land. They filed a suit for possession claiming title by adverse possession, asserting that they had been in open, continuous and hostile possession for over fifty years. The trial court granted the suit, but the High Court reversed, holding that the essential elements of adverse possession were not established. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the requirements of adverse possession under the Limitation Acts, emphasizing that a positive intention to dispossess (animus possidendi) is indispensable. It found that the appellants' possession stemmed from the sale deeds and that they lacked the requisite intent to dispossess the true owner. Consequently, the claim of title by adverse possession was rejected and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellants satisfied the statutory requirements for adverse possession under the Limitation Acts.
Whether a positive intention to dispossess is a necessary element for establishing adverse possession.
Whether the existence of prior sale deeds negates the claim of adverse possession.

Legislation cited

Limitation Act, 1908s. Article 142, s. Article 143
Limitation Act, 1963s. Article 64, s. Article 65

Subjects

adverse possessionlimitation acttitle by prescriptionintent to dispossesshuman rightsproperty lawcivil appealIndia

Judgment

P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY AND ORS. A
v.
REVAMMA AND ORS.

APRIL 24, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 64 & 65 of the Schedule-Indian
Limitation Act, 1908-Articles 142 & 143 of the Schedule-Purchase of suit
property by plaintiffs by registered sale deeds without knowledge of earlier C
purchase of the same by defendants-Suit for possession claiming title by
adverse possession was decreed by trial court-High Court reversing the
judgment of the trial court holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title
by adverse possession-Correctness of-Held, on facts and evidence, positive
intention to dispossess the suit property essential to claim adverse possession
was not proved by plaintiffs and hence, suit for possession dismissed. D
Appellant-plaintiffs purchased suit property by two registered sale deeds
subsequent to the purchase of the same by respondents-defendants. A suit for
possession filed by the appellants claiming title on the basis of adverse
possession was decreed by the trial court. The High Court, in appeal, reversed
the judgment of the trial court holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their E
title by adverse possession.

In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the
acknowledgment of the owner's title was not sine qua non for claiming title
by adverse possession.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Adverse possession is based on the theory or presumption
that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the
acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in
possession • It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie G
in it being open, continuous and hostiles. (Para 5) (496-D, E)

Downing v. Bird, (100) So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958); Arkansas Commemorative
Commission v. City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957);
491 H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.
A Monnot v. Murphy, (207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913) and City of Rock
Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929), referred to.

1.2. Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on
strong limitation statutes by operation of which, the right to access the court
expires through effluxion of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in
B the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in
favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for
the land, developed it as against the owner of the property who has ignored
the property. Modern statutes oflimitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut
off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in
the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the
c possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who
neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the
possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of
right or color of title. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by
itself for the success of an adverse possession claim.
D (Para 6) (496-F, G; 497-A, B)

American Jurisprudence Vol. 3, referred to.

Fairweather v. St. Marylebone Property Co., (1962) 2 WLR 1020;
(1962) 2 All ER 299; Taylorv. Twinberries, (1930) 2KB17 and Chung Ping
E Kwan & Ors. v. Lam Island Development Company Ltd. (Hong Kong), (1997)
AC 38, referred to.

1.3. To assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is
required. Firstly, application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially
"Willful neglect" element on part of the owner established. Successful
F application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner.
Secondly, specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse
possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner,
to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor
t
as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in
the upkeep of the property. [Para 9) (498-D, E, F)
G
1.4 The aspect of positive intention is weakened by the two sale deeds.
Intention is a mental element which is proved and disproved through positive
acts. Existence of some events can go a long way to weaken the presumption
of intention to dispossess which might have painstakingly grown out of long
possession which otherwise would have sufficed in a standard adverse
H possession case. The fact of possession is important in more than one way.
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA 493
Firstly, due compliance on this count attracts limitation act and secondly, it A
· also assists the court to unearth as the intention to dispossess.
(Para 13] [499-D, E]

JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom, (2005] 49 ERG 90; (2005]
ECHR 921, referred to.
B
1.5. Intention to possess can not be substituted for intention to
dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. The factum of
possession in the instant case only goes on to objectively indicate intention to
possess the land. If the appellant has purchased the land without the knowledge
of earlier sale, then in that case the intention element is not of the variety C
and degree which is required for adverse possession to materialize.
[Para 15) (499-G; 500-A]

Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) v. Arvind Kumar, [1994) 6 SCC 591,
referred to.

Lambeth London Borough Council v. Blackburn, [2001) 82 P & CR D
494 and The Powell v. Macfarlane, [1977] 39 P & CR 452, referred to.
t
1.6. There must be intention to disposses:>. It needs to be open and hostile
enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has an opportunity to
object After all adverse possession right is not a substantive right but a result E
of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise) of right to defend
or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper owner of the
land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation, rest on a
public policy that does not promote litigation and aims at the repose of
conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long enough
to indicate their acquiescence. Intention implies knowledge on the part of the F
adverse possessor. A peaceful, open and continuous possession is engraved
in the maxim nee vi, nee clam, nee precario i.e. not by force, nor stealth, nor
the licence of the owner. [Paras 20, 22 and 23) [501-F, G; 502-A, B-E; 504-C)

Saroop Singh v. Banta & Ors, (2005] 8 SCC 330; Karnataka Board of
Wakf v. Government ofIndia & Ors., (2004] 10 SCC 779; Name Rama Murthy G
v. Ravula Somasundaram & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 614; S. M Karim v. Mst. Bibi
Sakini, AIR (1964) SC 1254; P. Periasami v. Periathambi, (1995) 6 SCC 253;
Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639; M Durai v. Madhu &
Ors., (2007) 2 SCALE 309; Saroop Singh v. Banta & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 330;
Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh & Ors. v. Abdulla Kasambhai Sheikh, H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) S S.C.R.

A (2004) 13 sec 385; T. Anjanappa & Ors. v. Somalingappa & Anr., [2006) 7
SCC 570; Des Raj & Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2007) 3
SCALE 371 and Govindammal v. R Perumal Chettiar & Ors., JT (2006) 10
SC 121 : (2006) 11 SCC 600, referred to.

Secy. of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR (1934) PC 23 and State of
B West Bengal v. The Dalhousie Institute Society, AIR (1970) SC 1978,
distinguished.

R. v. Oxfordshire Cor;nty Council & Ors., Ex Parle Sunningwell Parish
Council, (1999) 3 ALL ER 385; (1999) 3 WLR 160; Beresford, R (on the
C application of) v. City of Sunderland, (2003) 3 WLR 1306; (2004] l All ER
160; Beaulane Properties Ltd v. Palmer, (2005) 3 WLR 554: (2005) EWHC
817 (Ch); JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United Kingdom, (2005) EHCR 921 (2005)
49 ERG 90 (2005] ECHR 921; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96 [108-14
ECHR 2000-1], referred to.

D Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, (1789) and
Universal of Human Rights, (1948) referred to.

1. 7. Adverse Possession is a right which comes into play not just
because someone loses high right to reclaim the property out of continuous
and willful neglect but also on account of possessor's positive intent to
E dispossess. Therefore, it is important to take into account before stripping
somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy
and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into
the shoes of the paper owner of the property. [Para 58) (513-A, BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7062 of2000.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 .11.1999 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 134 of 1995.

P. Krishnamoorthy, Romy Chacko, Girjesh Pandey and Rajiv Mehta for
the Appellants.
G
K.R. Sasiprabhu, Arvind Varma, Swati Sinha and Jaysree Singh (for Ml
S Fox Manda! & Co.) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H S.B. SINHA, J. BACKGROUND FACTS
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 495
1. One Thippaiah was the owner of 5 acre 23 guntas of land having been A
recorded in Survey No. 153/1 of Chikkabanavara Village. Nanjapa, adoptive
father of Respondent No. 1 purchased a portion thereof measuring 1 acre 21
guntas on 11.09.1933. By reason of two different sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934
and 5.07.1936, the appellants herein purchased 2 acre 15 guntas and 3 acre
8 guntas of land respectively, out of the said plot. Despite the fact that
Nanjapa purchased a portion of the said plot, the appellants allegedly took B
over possession of the entire 5 acre 23 guntas of land after the aforementioned
purchases. However, when allegedly their possession was sought to be
disturbed by the respondent in the year 1988, they filed a suit in the court
of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore which was marked as O.S. No. 287
of 1989. In the said suit, they clamed title on the basis of adverse possession C
stating:
" ....The plaintiffs submit that in any event the plaintiffs have perfected
their title by adverse possession as the plaintiffs have been in open,
continuous uninterrupted and hostile possession of the plaint schedule
land, adversely to the interest of any other person including the D
defendant for the past over fifty years exercising absolute rights of
ownership in respect of the plaint schedule land...."
2. Defendants-Respondents in their written statement denied and
disputed the aforementioned assertion of the plaintiffs and pleaded their own
right, title and interest as also possession in or over the said 1 acre 21 guntas E
of land. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit inter alia holding that the
plaintiffs- appellants have acquired title by adverse possession as they have
been in possession of the lands in question for a period of more than 50
years. On an appeal having been preferred there against by the respondents
before the High Court, the said judgment of the Trial Court was reversed
holding: F
(i) "The important averments of adverse possession are two fold. One
is to recognize the title of the person against whom adverse possession
is claimed. Another is to enjoy the property adverse to the title
holder's interest after making him known that such enjoyment is
against his own interest. These two averments are basically absent in G
this case both in the pleadings as well as in the evidence .... "
(ii) "The finding of the Court below that the possession of the plaintiffs'
become adverse to the defendants between 1934-1936 is again an error
apparent on the face of the record. As it is now clarified before me
by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs' claim in H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A respect of the other land of the defendants is based on the subsequent
sale deed dated 5.7.1936.

It is settled law that mere possession even if it is true for any number
of years will not cloth the person in enjoyment with the title by
adverse possession. As indicated supra, the important ingredients of
B adverse possession should have been satisfied."

SUBMISSIONS ,.
3. Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in
C arriving at the aforementioned conclusion as it failed to take into consideration
the principle that acknowledgement of the owner's title was not sine qua non
for claiming title by prescription. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on
Secy. of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR (1934) PC 23 and State of West
Bengal v. The Dalhousie Institute Society, AIR ( 1970) SC 1798.

D 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

CHARACTERIZING AD VERSE POSSESSION

5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption
E that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessoror on
the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person
in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession
lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. (See Downing v. Bird, I 00 So.
2d 57 (Fla. 1958), Arkansas Commemoraiive Commission v. City of Little
F Rock, 227 Ark. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnotv. Murphy, 207 N.Y. 240,
100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908,
97 A.L.R. I (1929).]

6. Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on
strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court
G expires through effluxion of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in the
context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in
favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for
the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored
the property. Modem statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut
off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been
H
P.T.MUNICHIKKANNAv. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA,J.] 497
~ in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the A
possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who
neglects to assert rights, but to protect those who have maintained the
possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of
right or color of title. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 2d, Page 81 ). It is
important to keep in mind while studying the American notion of Adverse B
Possession, especially in the backdrop of Limitation Statutes, that the
intention to dispossess can not be given a complete go by. Simple application
of Limitation shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse
possession claim.

7. To understand the true nature of adverse possession, Fairweather C
v. St. Marylebone Property Co, (1962) 2 WLR 1020, [1962] 2 All ER 288 can
be considered where House of Lords referring to Taylor v. Twinberrow, (1930]
2 K.B. 16, termed adverse possession as a negative and consequential right
effected only because somebody else's positive right to access the court is
barred by operation of law:
D
"In my opinion this principle has been settled Jaw since the date of
that decision. It formed the basis of the later decision of the Divisional
Count in Taylor v. Twinberrow, (1930) 2 K.B. 16, in which it was most
clearly explained by Scrutton, L.J. that it was a misunderstanding of
the legal effect of 12 years adverse possession under the Limitation
Acts to treat it as if it gave a title whereas its effect is "merely E
negative" and, where the possession had been against a tenant, its
only operation was to bar his right to claim against the man in
possession (see Joe. cit. p. 23). I think that this statement needs only
one qualification: a squatter does in the end get a title by his
possession and the indirect operation of the Act and he can convey p
a fee simple.

If this principle is applied, as it must be, to the Appellant's
situation, it appears that the adverse possession completed in 1932
against the Jessee of No. 315 did not transfer to him either the lessee's'
term or his rights against or has obligations to the landlord who held G
the reversion. The appellant claims to be entitled to keep the landlord
at bay until the expiration of the term by effluxion of time in 1992: but,
if he is, it cannot be because he is the transferee or holder of the term
which was granted to the Jessee. He is in possession by his own right,
so far as it is a right: and it is a right so far as the statutes of limitation
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) S S.C.R.

A which govern the matter prescribe both when the rights to dispossess
him are to be treated as accruing and when, having accrued, they are
thereafter to be treated as barred. In other words, a squatter has as
much protection as but no more protection than the statutes allow:
but he has not the title or estate of the owner or owners whom he has
dispossessed nor has he in any relevant sense an estate
B "commensurate with" the estate of the dispossessed. All that this
misleading phrase can mean is that, since his possession only defeats
the rights of those to whom it has been adverse, there may be rights
not prescribed against, such, for instance, as equitable easements,
which axe no less enforceable against him in respect of the land than
c they would have been against the owners he has dispossessed."

8. Also see Privy Council's decision in Chung Ping Kwan and Ors. v.
Lam Island Development Company Limited (Hong Kong), (1997) AC 38 in
this regard.

D 9. Therefore, to assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged
enquiry is required:

I. Application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially
"willful neglect" element on part of the owner established.
Successful application in this regard distances the title .of the
E land from the paper-owner.
2 Specific Positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse
possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the
paper owner, to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in
favour of adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express
~··

F statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the property.

10. It is interesting to see the development of adverse possession law
in the backdrop of the status of Right to Property in the 21st Century. The
aspect of stronger Property Rights Regime in general, coupled with efficient
legal regimes furthering the Rule of Law argument, has redefmed the thresholds
G in adverse possession law not just in India but also by the Strasbourg Court.
Growth of Human Rights jurisprudence in recent times has also palpably
affected the developments in this regard. .

NEW CONSIDERATION IN ADVERSE POSSESSION LAW

H 11. In that context it is releva.'lt to refer to JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 499
Kingdom, (2005) 49 ERG 90, [2005] ECHR 921 wherein the European Court of A
Human Rights while referring to the Court of Appeal judgment ([2001 ]EWCA
Civ 117, [2001 ]Ch 804) made the following reference:

"Lord Justice Keene took as his starting point that limitation periods
were in principle not incompatible with the Convention and that the
process whereby a person would be barred from enforcing rights by B
the passage of time was clearly acknowledged by the Convention
(Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms). This position obtained, in his view, even though limitation
periods both limited the right of access to the courts and in some
circumstances had the effect of depriving persons of property rights, C
j whether real or personal, or of damages: there was thus nothing
inherently incompatible as between the 1980 Act and Article 1 of the
Protocol."

12. This brings us to the issue of mental element in adverse possession
cases-intention. D
I. Positive Intention

13. The aspect of positive intention is weakened in this case by the sale
deeds dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07 .1936. Intention is a mental element which is
proved and disproved through positive acts. Existence of some events can E
go a long way to weaken the presumption of intention to dispossess which
might have painstakingly grown out of long possession which otherwise
would have sufficed in a standard adverse possession case. The fact of
possession is important in more than one ways: firstly, due compliance on this
count attracts limitation act and it also assists the court to unearth as the
intention to dispossess. F

14. At this juncture, it would be in the fitness of circumstances to
discuss intention to dispossess vis-a-vis intention to possess. This distinction
can be marked very distinctively in the present circumstances.

15. Importantly, intention to possess can not be substituted for intention G
to dispossess which is essential to prove adverse possession. The factum of
possession in the instant case only goes on to objectively indicate intention
to possess the land. As also has been noted by the High Court, if the
appellant has purchased the land without the knowledge of earlier sale, then
in that case the intention element is not of the variety and degree which is H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R

A required for adverse possession to materialize. "'--

16. The High Court observed:

"It is seen from the pleadings as well in evidence that the plaintiff
came to know about the right of the defendants', only when
B disturbances were sought to be made to his possession."

17. In similar circumstances, in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (dead)
"-
v. Arvind Kumar, [1994] 6 SCC 591 this court held:
,..
"As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the
c trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in
dispute under a licence from the respondent for purposes of brick-
kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was
heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A
possession of a co-owner or of a licencee or of an agent or a permissive
possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and
D convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse
to the knowledge ofreal owner. Mere possession for howsoever length
of time does not result in converting the permissible possession into 1
adverse possession. Apart from it, the Appellate Court has gone into
detail and after considering the evidence on recordfound it as a fact
that the possession of the appellant was not adverse. "
E
I 8. The present case is one of the few ones where even an unusually
long undisturbed possession does not go on to prove the intention of the
adverse possessor. This is a rare circumstance, which Clarke LJ in Lambeth
London Borough Council v. Blackburn, (2001) 82 P & CR 494, 504 refers to:
F "I would not for my part think it appropriate to strain to hold that
a trespasser who had established factual possession of the -property
for the necessary 12 years did not have the animus possidendi identified
in the cases. I express that view for two reasons. The first is that the
requirement that there be a sufficient manifestation of the intention
G provides protection for landowners and the second is that once it is
held that the trespasser has factual possession it will very often be I-
the case that he can establish the manifested intention. Indeed it is
difficult to find a case in which there has been a clear finding of .
factual possession in which the claim to adverse possession has
failed for lack of intention. "
H
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA (S.B. SINHA, J.) 501
19. On intention, The Powell v. Macfarlane, (1977) 38 P & CR (Property, A
Planning & Compensation Reports) 452 472 is quite illustrative and categorical,
holding in the following terms:

"If the law is to attribute possession of land to a person who can
establish no paper title to. possessior., he must be shown to have both
factual possession and the requisite intention to possess ('animus B
possidendi')."

If his acts are open to more than one interpretation and he has not
made it perfectly plain to the world at large by his actions or words C
that he has intended to exclude the owner as best he can, the courts
..... will treat him as not having had the requisite animus possidendi and
consequently as not having dispossessed the owner.

In my judgment it is consistent with principle as well as authority that
D
a person who originally entered another's land as a trespasser, but
later seeks to show that he has dispossessed the owner, should be
required to adduce compelling evidence that he had the requisite
animus possidendi in any case where his use of the land was equivocal,
in the sense that it did not necessarily, by itself, betoken an intention E
on his part to claim the land as his own and exclude the true owner.

What is really meant, in my judgment, is that the animus possidendi
involves the intention, in one's own name and on one's own behalf, F
to exclude the world at large, including the owner with the paper
title if he be not himself the possessor, so far as is reasonably
practicable and so far as the processes of the law will allow. "

20. Thus, there must be intention to dispossess. And it needs to be
open and hostile enough to bring the same to the knowledge and plaintiff has G
an opportunity to object. After all adverse possession right is not a substantive
right but a result of the waiving (willful) or omission (negligent or otherwise)
of right to defend or care for the integrity of property on the part of the paper
owner of the land. Adverse possession statutes, like other statutes of limitation,
rest on a public policy that do not promote litigation and aims at the repose
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] S S.C.R.
~
.._
A of conditions that the parties have suffered to remain unquestioned long
enough to indicate their acquiescence.

21. While dealing with the aspect of intention in the Adverse possession
law, it is important to understand its nuances from varied angles.

B 22. Intention implies knowledge on the part of adverse possessor. The
case of Saroop Singh v. Banto and Ors., [2005] 8 SCC 330 in that context held:

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not
r
commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the
plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession
c becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath
Muljibhai Nayak)

30. Animus possidendi is one of the ingredients of adverse
possession. Unless the person _possessing the land has a requisite
animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the
D 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. Jagadish
Kalita, SCC para 21. )"

23. A peaceful, open and continuous possession as engraved in.. the
E maxim nee vi, nee clam, nee preeario has been noticed by this Court in
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India and Ors., [2004] 10 SCC
779 in the following terms:

" .... Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi
to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most 1
..
F important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea
of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one
of fact and Jaw. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession
should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was
the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession
G was known to the other party, (d) how Jong his possession has
continued, and ( e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A
person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour.
Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him
to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his
adverse possession.... "
H
P.T. MUNJCHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.S. SINHA, J.] 503
> )<
24. It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would A
have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse
user gets communicated to the paper owner of the property. This is where the
law gives importance to hostility and openness as pertinent qualities of
manner of possession. It follows that the possession of the adverse possessor
must be hostile enough to give rise to a reasonable notice and opportunity
to the paper owner. B

25. In Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram and Ors., [2005]
6 SCC 614, this Court held:

"However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed
question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred c
by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove
limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved. In this
~ase the question of limitation is intricately linked with the question
whether the agreement to sell was entered into on behalf of all and
whether possession was on behalf of all. It is also linked with the plea D
of adverse possession. Once on facts it has been found that the
purchase was on behalf of all and that the possession was on behalf
of all, then, in the absence of any open, hostile and overt act, there
can be no adverse possession and the suit would also not be barred
by limitation. The only hostile act which could be shown was the
advertisement issued in 1989. The suit filed ahnost immediately E
thereafter."

26. The test is, as has been held in the case of R. v. Oxfordshire County
Council and Others, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council, [1999] 3 ALL ER
.. ., 385; (1999) 3 WLR 160:
F
Bright v. Walker, (1834) 1 Cr. M. & R. 211, 219, "openly and in the
manner that a person rightfully entitled would have used it. .." The
presumption arises, as Fry J. said of prescription generally in Dalton
v. Angus, (1881) 6 App.Cas. 740, 773, from acquiescence.

27. The case concerned interpretation of section 22(1) of the Commons G
Registration Act 1965. Section 22( 1) defined "town or village green" as including

" .... land .... on which the inhabitants of any locality have indulged in
[lawful] sports and pastimes as of right for not less than 20 years."

28. It was observed that the inhabitants' use of the land for sports and H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A pastimes did not constitute the use "as of right". The belief that they had the
right to do so was found to be Jacking. The House held that they did not have
to have a personal belief in their right to use the land. The court observed:

"the words 'as of right' import the absence of any of the three
characteristics of compulsion, secrecy or licence-'nee vi, nee clam,
B nee precario', phraseology borrowed from the law of easements."

29. Later in the case of Beresford, R (on the application of) v. City of
Sunderland, (2003) 3 WLR 1306, [2004] J All ER 160 same test was referred
to.

C 30. Thus the test of nee vi, nee clam, nee precario i.e., "not by force,
nor stealth, nor the license of the owner" has been an established notion in
Jaw relating to the whole range of similarly situated concepts such as easement,
prescription, public dedication, limitation and adverse possession.

31. In Karnataka Wakf Board (Supra), the law was stated, thus:
D
"In the eye of law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession
l
of a property so Jong as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property
by the owner even for a Jong time won't affect his title. But the
position will be altered when another person takes possession of the
property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile
E possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true
owner. It is a well- settled principle that a party claiming adverse
possession must prove that his possession is 'nee vi, nee clam, nee
precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession
must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that
F their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a
wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible,
exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See : SM
Karim v. Bibi Sakinal, AIR (1964) SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi, [1993]
4 SCC 375 and D N Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka, [1997] 7
SCC 567. Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus
G possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the
most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this
nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but
a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse
possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession,
H (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 505
-.... >' possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession A
has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A
person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour.
Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to
clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse
possession."
B
32. 2. Inquiry into the particulars of Adverse Possession

. 33. Inquiry into the starting point of adverse possession i.e. dates as
to when the paper owner got dispossessed is an important aspect to be
considered. In the instant case the starting point of adverse possession and
Other facts such as the manner in which the possession operationalized, c
nature of possession: whether open, continuous, uninterrupted or hostile
possession - have not been disclosed. An observation has been made in this
regard in S.M. Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR (1964) SC 1254]:

"Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and
extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession
D
becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the
party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when
possession became adverse, if it at all did, and a mere suggestion in
the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several
12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title" was not E
enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily
adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a
plea."

> 34. Also mention as to the real owner of the property must be specifically
" made in an adverse possession claim. F
35. In Karnataka Wakf Board (Supra), it is stated:

"Plaintiff, filing a title suit should be very clear about the origin of
title over the property. He must specifically plead it. In P Periasami
v. p Periathambi, [ 1995] 6 sec 523 this Court ruled that - "Whenever G
the plea of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is
that someone else was the owner of the property. " The pleas on title
and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does
not begin to operate until the former is renounced. Dealing with
Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gajfar, [1996] l SCC 639 that is similar to H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] S S.C.R.

A the case in hand, this Court held:

"As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea.
Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim
his right there under and plead and prove assertion of his independent
hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his
B successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his
illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to
completing the period his title by prescription nee vi, nee clam, nee
precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it
goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into
c possession of land lawfully under the agreement and continued to
remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse
possession is not available to the appellant.""

3. New Paradigm to Limitation Act

D 36. The law in this behalf has undergone a change. In terms of Articles
142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the burden of proof was on the
plaintiff to show within 12 years from the date of institution of the suit that
he had title and possession of the land, whereas in terms of Articles 64 and
65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the legal position has underwent complete
change insofar as the onus is concerned: once a party proves its title, the
E onus of proof would be on the other party to prove claims of title by adverse
possession. The ingredients of adverse possession have succinctly been
stated by this Court in S.M Karim v. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR (1964) SC 1254
in the following terms:

F
" ..... Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in .,
publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when
possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation
against the party affected can be found ..."

[See also M Durai v. Madhu and Ors., (2007) 2 SCALE 309]
G 37. The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this Court in
Saroop Singh v. Banto and Ors., [2005] 8 SCC 330 stating:

"29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point oflimitation does not
commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the
plaintiff but commences from the date the defendants possession
H
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 507
-.> __>
becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath A
Muljibhai Nayak)

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

38. In Mohammadbhai Kasambhai Sheikh and Ors v. Abdulla
Kasambhai Sheikh, [2004] 13 SCC 385, this Court held: c
i' " .....But as has been held in Mahomedally Tyebally v. Safiabai the
heirs of Mohammedans (which the parties before us are) succeed to
the estate in specific shares as tenants-in-common and a suit by an
heir for his/her share was governed, as regards immovable property,
by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Article 144 of the Limitation D
Act, 1908 has been materially re-enacted as Article 65 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 and provides that the suit for possession of immovable
property or any interest therein based on title must be filed within a
period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant
becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Therefore, unless the defendant E
raises the defence of adverse possession to a claim for a share by an
heir to ancestral property, he cannot also raise an issue relating to the
limitation of the plaintiffs claim...."

j,
39. The question has been considered at some length recently in T.
Pl Anjanappa and Ors. v. Somalingappa and Anr., [2006] 7 SCC 570, wherein F
it was opined :

"The High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants
claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true
owner and even if they had believed that the Government was the true
owner and not the plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. Obviously, G
the requirements of proving adverse possession have not been
established. If the defendants are not sure who is the true owner the
question of their being in hostile possession and the question of
denying title of the true owner do not arise. Above being the position
the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable...."
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.
.: -~
A [See also Des Raj and Ors. v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) By LRs. and Ors.,
(2007) 3 SCALE 371 and Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar & Ors., JT
(2006) 1osc 121 : r2006J ll sec 6001

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

B 40. The decision of the Judicial Committee in Debendra Lal Khan
(supra), whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr. Krishnamoorthy, does
not militate against the aforementioned propositions of law. The question
which arose for consideration therein was as to whether the plaintiff had .,...
acquired right or title to the fisheries by adverse possession in the portion
of river Cossye. In the aforementioned situation, it was held that the Limitation
c Act is indulgent to the Crown in one respect only, namely, in requiring a much
longer period of adverse possession than in the case of a subject; otherwise ~
1
there is no discrimination between the Crown and the subject as regards the
requisites of adverse possession. The said decision is not of much assistance
in this case.
D
41. In The Dalhousie Institute Society (supra), this Court found as of
fact that the respondents were in open, continuous and uninterrupted
possession and enjoyment of site for over 60 years. It was in that situation,
the title of the defendant, in that behalf, was accepted.

E RIGHT TO PROPERTY AS HUMAN RIGHT

42. There is another aspect of the matter, which cannot be lost sight of.
The right of property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or
statutory right but also a human right.

f4
•
F 43. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789 enunciates
right to property under Article 17 :

"since the right to property is inviolable and sacred, no-one may be
deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously
requires it and just and prior indemnity has been paid".
G
44. Moreover, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 under section
I7(i) and l 7(ii) also recognizes right to property :

"17 (i) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others. (ii) No-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
H property."
P.T. MUNJCHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA,J.) 509
.....- '),
45. Human rights have been historically considered in the realm of A
individual rights such as, right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter
and employment etc. but now human rights are gaining a multifaceted
dimension. Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new
dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that
context. The activist approach of the English Courts is quite visible from the
judgement of Beaulane Properties Ltd. v. Palmer, (2005) 3 WLR 554: (2005) B
EWHC 817 (Ch.)] andJA Pye (Oxford) Ltdv. United Kingdom, (2005) ECHR
921 [2005] 49 ERG 90, (2005] ECHR 921 ], The court herein tried to read the
.., Human Rights position in the context of adverse possession. But what is
commendable is that the dimensions of human rights has widened so much
that now property dispute issues are also being raised within the contours c
of human rights.

46. With the expanding jurisprudence of the European Court of Human
Rights, the Court has taken an unkind view to the concept of adverse
possession in the recent judgment of J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United
Kingdom, (2005) ECHR 921, which concerned the loss of ownership of land D
by virtue of adverse possession.

47. In the instant case the applicant company was the registered owner
of a plot of 23 hectares of agricultural land. The owners of a property adjacent
to the land, Mr. and Mrs. Graham ("the Grahams") occupied the land under
a grazing agreement. After a brief exchange of documents in December 1983 E
a chartered surveyor acting for the applicants wrote to the Grahams noting
that the grazing agreement was about to expire and requiring them to vacate
the land.

48. In essence, from September 1984 onwards until 1999 the Grahams
.>
la continued to use the whole of the disputed land for farming without the F
permission of the applicants.

49. In 1997, Mr Graham moved the Local Land Registry against the
applicant on the ground that he had obtained title by adverse possession.
The applicant companies responded to the motion and importantly also issued
further proceedings seeking possession of the disputed land. G
50. The Grahams challenged the applicant companies' claims under the
Limitation Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") which provides that a person cannot
bring an action to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years of adverse
possession by another. They also relied on the Land Registration Act 1925,
which applied at the relevant time and which provided that, after the expiry H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A of the 12-year period, the registered proprietor was deemed to hold the land
in trust for the squatter.

51. It is important to quote here the judgment pronounced in favour of
the Grahams ([2000]Ch 676). The court held in favour of the Grahams but went
on to observe the irony in law of adverse possession. According to the court,
B law which provides to oust an owner on the basis of inaction of 12 years is
"illogical and disproportionate". The effect of such law would "seem
draconian to the owner" and "a windfall for the squatter". The fact that just
because "the owner had taken no step to evict a squatter for 12 years, the
owner should lose 25 hectares of land to the squatter with no compensation
C whatsoever" would be disproportionate.
52. The applicant companies appealed and the Court of.Appeal reversed
the High Court decision. The Grahams then appealed to the House of Lords,
which, allowed their appeal and restored the order of the High Court. In J A
Pye (Oxford) Ltd & Ors v. Graham & Anr.,. (2002] 3 All ER 865 House of
D Lords observed that the Grahams had possession of the land in the ordinary
sense of the word, and therefore the applicant companies had been
dispossessed of it within the meaning of the 1980 Act. There was no
inconsistency between a squatter being willing to pay the paper owner if
asked and his IJeing in possession in the meantime. It will be pertinent to note
in this regard Lord Bingham (agreeing with Lord Browne-Wilkinson) in the
E course of his judgment:

"[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after
the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed
to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would
have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault.
•
F But the result of Pye's inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of
the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain
enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable
area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former
owner in any way at all. ;n the case of unregistered land, and in th!!
G days before registration became the norm, such a result could rro
doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title ).

to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any
justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust
result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not
be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it.
H
P.T. MUNICHJKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 511
It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has A
addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through
inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been
brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye,
whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am
satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my
noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge B
[Neuberger J] ... ) 'arrive at with no enthusiasm'."

53. There:lfter the applicants moved the European Commission of Human
Rights (ECHR) alleging that the United Kingdom law on adverse possession,
by which they lost land to a neighbour, operated in violation of Article l of C
Protocol No. l to Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention").

54. It was contended by the applicants that they had been deprived of
their land by the operation of the domestic law on adverse possession which
is in contravention with Article I of Protocol No. l to Convention for the D
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"),
\ which reads as under:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions
except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided E
for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the
right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control
the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to
• secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties." F
55. The European Council of Human Rights importantly laid down three
pronged test to judge the interference of government with the right of "peaceful
enjoyment of property". While referring to Beyeler v. Italy, (GC], no. 33202/
96, " 108-14, ECHR 2000-I, it was held that the "interference" should comply
with the principle of lawfulness pursue a legitimate aim (public interest) by G
means reasonably proportionate to ti)e aim sought to be realized.

In fine the court observed:

"The question nevertheless remains whether, even having regard to
the lack of care and inadvertence on the part of the applicants and H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A their advisers, the deprivation of their title to the registered land and
the transfer of beneficial ownership to those in unauthorised
possession struck a fair balance with any legitimate public interest ·
served.

In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the application of
B the provisions of the 1925 and 1980 Acts to deprive the applicant
companies of their title to the registered land imposed on them an
individual and excessive burden and upset the fair balance between
'
the demands of the public interest on the one hand and the applicants'
right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on the other. ..
c There has therefore been a violation of Article I of Protocol No. l."

56. The question of the application of Article 41 was referred for the
Grand Chamber Hearing of the ECHR. This case sets the field of Adverse
Possession and its interface with the right to peaceful enjoyment in all its
complexity.
D
Therefore it will have to be kept in mind the Courts around the world
are taking an unkind view toward statutes of limitation overriding property
rights.

THE PRESENT CASE
E 57. It is to be borne in mind that the respondent had already purchased
I acre 21 guntas out of the 5 acres 25 guntas under a duly registered deed
dated 1.9.1933. Appellant bought the entire chunk of 5 acres 23 guntas
subsequent to the respondent's transaction. The validity of such sale is not
the question in the instant case but the transaction relating to I acre 23
4
F Guntas remains an important surrounding circumstance to assess the nature It>
of appellant's possession. The question is whether it is a case of mistaken
possession ignoramus of the previous sale or adverse possession having the
mental element in the requisite degree to dispossess. Also much depends on
the answer to the query regarding the starting point of adverse possession:
when can the possession be considered to have become adverse? In the facts
G and circumstances of this case, the possession of appellant was effected
through the sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936. Therefore, the alleged
fact of adverse possession bears a pronounced backdrop of 1933 sale deed
passing I acre 21 Guntas to the respondent. .

58. Are we to say that it is a sale with doubtful antecedents (I acre 23
H Guntas) sought to be perfected or completed through adverse possession?
P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA v. REVAMMA [S.B. SINHA, J.) 513
~ )o But that aspect of the matter is not under consideration herein. As has A
already been mentioned, adverse possession is a right which comes into play
. not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of
continuous and willful neglect but also on account of possessor's positive
intent to dispossess. Therefore it is important to take into account before
stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor B
worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step
into the shoes of the paper-owner of the property. This test forms the basis
of decision in the instant case.

59. The argument for a more intrusive inquiry for adverse possession
must not be taken to be against the law of limitations. Limitation statutes as C
statutes of repose have utility and convenience as their purpose. Nevertheless,
there has been change on this front as well which have been noticed by us
heretobefore.

60. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal
which is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. D
25,000/.
\
B.S. Appeal dismissed.