Adverse Possession and Ownership: Supreme Court Recognizes Possessory Rights

The case of Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) By LRs. v. O. V. Narasimha Setty (D) By LRs. revolved around a prolonged land ownership dispute dating back to the pre-independence era. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the possession of land for over 12 years, claimed as adverse possession, could mature into ownership.

In this landmark judgment, the Court clarified that a person in possession of property for over 12 years, with an intention hostile to the real owner, could claim ownership by adverse possession. The ruling is a significant addition to property law jurisprudence in India, reinforcing that adverse possession can be used both as a defense and as a basis for claiming ownership.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute over the suit property dated back to the 1940s when the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, Krishnamurthy Setlur (KS), had his property managed by one H.R. Narayana Iyengar (HR). A power of attorney was executed in favor of HR to manage the properties.

The legal battle spanned multiple decades, with KS filing various suits asserting ownership and possession rights. The key legal question before the Supreme Court was:

• Did KS have a valid claim to ownership based on adverse possession?
• Could possession for over 12 years, hostile to the true owner, be used to claim title to the property?
• Did the High Court err in rejecting KS’s claim to ownership?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Krishnamurthy S. Setlur’s Legal Heirs)

The petitioners contended:

• KS had been in uninterrupted possession of the suit property since 1963.
• The legal heirs of HR never took legal action to reclaim possession for over 12 years.
• The revenue records from 1963 to 1981 showed KS as the owner in possession.
• The tenancy rights had been legally surrendered to KS, strengthening his claim.

Arguments of the Respondent (Legal Heirs of H.R. Narayana Iyengar)

The respondents argued:

• HR was the actual owner of the property, as recognized by earlier court rulings.
• KS was not the original owner and could not claim ownership over land purchased in HR’s name.
• The transactions and legal documentation relied upon by KS were misleading and did not confer title upon him.
• KS’s possession was not adverse but permissive, meaning he was merely occupying the land without an intent to dispossess the rightful owner.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court extensively examined the doctrine of adverse possession and its legal implications. The Court observed:

“A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law, and once 12 years’ period of adverse possession is over, even the owner’s right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires the right, title, and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner.”

The Court made the following critical observations:

1. Legal Recognition of Adverse Possession

The Court clarified that adverse possession could be used both as a shield (defense) and a sword (offense) to claim ownership.

“By perfection of title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a person cannot be remediless. If he has been dispossessed by the owner after having lost the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by the plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse possession.”

2. Revenue Records as Evidence of Possession

The Court noted that KS’s name was recorded in revenue records from 1963 to 1981 as the person in possession. These records, unless rebutted, carried a presumption of truth.

3. Failure of the True Owner to Assert Rights

The Court found that the legal heirs of HR had not taken timely legal action to assert ownership or possession, thereby allowing KS’s claim of adverse possession to mature.

“Once it is held that KS was in possession of the suit property, the consequence will be that he is in adverse possession. The legal representatives of HR have failed to show how they obtained possession from HR.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court’s judgment, ruling:

• KS had legally perfected his title through adverse possession.
• Revenue records and possession history supported KS’s claim.
• Legal heirs of HR failed to take action within the prescribed limitation period.
• The trial court’s decision was reinstated, recognizing KS’s ownership.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for property law in India:

• Clear Precedent for Adverse Possession Claims: The judgment affirms that uninterrupted possession for over 12 years can lead to ownership, even against the rightful owner.
• Importance of Asserting Ownership: Property owners must actively assert their rights and take legal action within the limitation period.
• Strengthening Possession-Based Claims: This ruling reinforces that mere title is insufficient; possession plays a crucial role in determining property ownership.
• Legal Security for Long-Term Possessors: Individuals who have occupied land for decades without legal challenge may now have a stronger claim to ownership.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that adverse possession remains a legally viable route to ownership, provided the possessor meets all legal criteria.

Petitioner Name: Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) By LRs..
Respondent Name: O. V. Narasimha Setty (D) By LRs..
Judgment By: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Karnataka.
Judgment Date: 26-09-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Krishnamurthy S. Set vs O. V. Narasimha Sett Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-09-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category