A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment adjudicates a long-standing civil dispute concerning title, possession, and adverse possession over an urban immovable property in Bengaluru. The dispute arose when the original plaintiff sought vacant possession of a revenue site, asserting absolute ownership derived from ancestral property and joint family management. The defendant resisted the claim by setting up a competing narrative of ownership through an unregistered agreement of sale, a General Power of Attorney, and alternatively, perfection of title by adverse possession commencing from the same date.

The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous scrutiny of the documentary inconsistencies relied upon by the defendants and reaffirmed the concurrent factual findings of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding manipulation, alterations, and lack of proof of execution of the alleged documents. The Court emphasized that non-registration of title documents, absence of credible explanation for statutory prohibitions, and failure to examine the alleged transferee fatally undermined the plea of ownership.

A decisive contribution of the judgment lies in its authoritative reiteration of the doctrinal incompatibility between pleading title and adverse possession simultaneously from the same date. The Court reaffirmed that adverse possession necessarily presupposes acknowledgment of another’s title and requires clear pleading of the starting point of hostility. In the absence of proof as to when permissive possession became hostile, the plea collapses.

The judgment strengthens the jurisprudence that adverse possession is an exceptional doctrine that must be strictly pleaded and strictly proved. It reiterates that courts must exercise caution while entertaining such claims, as they operate to defeat lawful ownership.

Keywords: Adverse possession; contradictory pleas; unregistered sale agreement; permissive possession; burden of proof; hostile possession

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation traces its origin to a suit for possession instituted in 1989 concerning a revenue site carved out of ancestral agricultural land. The property formed part of a joint family estate managed by two brothers, one of whom later died issueless. The plaintiff asserted exclusive management rights as karta and claimed that the defendant was merely a licensee permitted to occupy the land temporarily for running a fuel depot.

The defence narrative fundamentally altered the character of possession. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s brother had executed an agreement of sale dated 10.10.1976 in favour of the defendant’s wife, followed by delivery of possession, execution of a General Power of Attorney in 1988, and eventual perfection of title by adverse possession. These assertions shifted the dispute from permissive occupation to hostile ownership.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground of adverse possession, despite recording serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the defendant. The High Court reversed this finding, holding that adverse possession was neither properly pleaded nor proved, and decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court was thus called upon to examine the doctrinal permissibility of inconsistent pleas, the standard of proof for adverse possession, and the legal consequences of unregistered and suspicious documents. The judgment situates itself within a long line of precedents that caution against casual acceptance of adverse possession claims.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The suit property originally formed part of an ancestral agricultural holding measuring 2 acres and 22 guntas in Survey No. 8/4, Goraguntepalya. By virtue of a registered partition deed dated 29.08.1956, the land fell to the share of the plaintiff and his elder brother A. Muniswamappa. Portions of the land were converted into revenue sites and sold, while some sites were retained.

Following municipal inclusion, betterment charges were levied and paid, and the khata stood in the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, after resigning from employment, was allowed to occupy a portion of the property gratuitously as a licensee to run a fuel depot, with a clear condition of vacating upon demand.

The dispute escalated when the defendant attempted to induct third parties. A legal notice dated 03.07.1989 revoked permission. Upon non-compliance, the suit for possession was instituted.

The defendant denied permissive possession and claimed that Muniswamappa had sold the property to his wife for Rs.11,000, executed an agreement of sale in 1976, delivered possession, and later executed a GPA and affidavit in 1988. The sale deed was never registered, allegedly due to a statutory prohibition.

Alternatively, the defendant pleaded that his wife had acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession due to continuous, open, and hostile possession since 1976.

The Trial Court disbelieved the documents due to erasures, alterations, contradictory testimony, and non-examination of the notary. Despite this, it upheld adverse possession. The High Court reversed this finding, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the defendants could simultaneously plead title through an agreement of sale and adverse possession from the same date?
ii. Whether adverse possession was pleaded and proved in accordance with settled legal principles?
iii. Whether possession originating under a purported agreement of sale could later become hostile without clear pleading of transition?
iv. Whether unregistered and suspicious documents could confer title or support adverse possession?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that possession commenced in 1976 and the suit filed in 1989 was barred by limitation. It was argued that the agreement of sale and General Power of Attorney established lawful possession and that failure to challenge these documents amounted to implied acceptance.

It was contended that alternative and inconsistent pleas were permissible under civil law and reliance was placed on Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur to argue that adverse possession could operate as a shield. The appellants further submitted that sale by one coparcener would bind at least his share and that non-impleadment of the defendant’s wife was fatal.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent submitted that once title was established, the burden squarely lay on the defendant to prove divestment. It was argued that adverse possession was neither clearly pleaded nor substantiated, as there was no evidence indicating when permissive possession became hostile.

The respondent emphasized that pleading title necessarily negates adverse possession, relying upon Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, P.T. Munichikkamma Reddy v. Revamma, and M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das. It was submitted that the High Court rightly corrected the Trial Court’s erroneous approach.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decree for possession. The Court affirmed that both courts below had concurrently disbelieved the alleged documents due to material alterations, erasures, contradictory testimony of DW-2, and failure to prove statutory prohibition on registration.

The Court categorically held that pleading ownership and adverse possession from the same date is legally impermissible. It reiterated that adverse possession requires proof of hostility, publicity, and continuity, commencing from the point when possession becomes adverse to the true owner.

The Court found that the appellants failed to establish when lawful possession, if any, transformed into hostile possession. The alleged transferee was never examined, weakening both title and adverse possession claims.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio is that a party cannot simultaneously assert lawful title and adverse possession from the same inception. Adverse possession presupposes acknowledgment of another’s title and requires renunciation of lawful origin. In absence of proof of the starting point of hostility, the plea fails.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that claims of adverse possession must be scrutinized with caution as they extinguish lawful ownership. Courts must resist casual acceptance of such pleas unless supported by cogent evidence.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Pleas of adverse possession must specifically plead the date of commencement of hostility.
ii. Title and adverse possession cannot co-exist from the same date.
iii. Documentary evidence must be free from suspicion and duly proved.
iv. Permissive possession does not mature into adverse possession without explicit hostile assertion.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment fortifies doctrinal clarity on adverse possession and decisively curbs misuse of inconsistent pleas. It reinforces evidentiary discipline and safeguards property rights against speculative claims. The decision aligns with constitutional values of certainty, fairness, and rule of law in property adjudication.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, [2004] 1 Supp SCR 255
ii. Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, [1995] 6 Supp SCR 638
iii. P.T. Munichikkamma Reddy v. Revamma, [2007] 5 SCR 491
iv. M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1
v. Ram Nagina Rai v. Deo Kumar Rai, (2019) 13 SCC 324

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
ii. Limitation Act, 1963