Supreme Court Rules on Adverse Possession: Plaintiffs Can Claim Ownership

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 8, 2019, addressed a crucial issue regarding adverse possession and the right of a plaintiff to claim ownership based on long-term possession. The case, Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) Through LRs. v. O.V. Narasimha Setty (D) By LRs. & Ors., dealt with whether a person in possession of property could assert ownership rights under adverse possession and file a suit to reclaim possession if displaced.

The ruling settled a long-standing debate about whether the doctrine of adverse possession can be used as a ‘sword’ by a plaintiff rather than just as a ‘shield’ by a defendant. The Court held that a person who has perfected title through adverse possession can file a suit to reclaim possession if illegally dispossessed.

Background of the Case

The appeals arose from multiple property disputes involving claims of adverse possession. The legal issue concerned the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs claims based on adverse possession. Historically, courts have ruled that a defendant can use adverse possession as a defense in a property suit, but whether a plaintiff can file a suit based on the same principle was a contentious issue.

The Supreme Court referred to a recent three-judge bench ruling in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors., which established that a person in possession cannot be ousted except by due process of law. The Court reiterated that once the statutory period for adverse possession is completed, the original owner’s title is extinguished, and the possessor attains ownership rights.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners contended:

• Adverse Possession Confers Ownership Rights: They argued that once a person has been in uninterrupted possession for the statutory period, their ownership rights are perfected.
• Possession is a Legal Right: Citing Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, they emphasized that possession itself is enforceable in law.
• Judicial Precedents Support Their Claim: They relied on past rulings where courts have upheld adverse possession claims against original owners.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents opposed the claims, arguing:

• Title Cannot Be Claimed Without a Deed: The respondents contended that property ownership requires legal documentation and cannot be acquired solely through possession.
• Adverse Possession Is a Defensive Doctrine: They argued that adverse possession can only be used as a defense, not as a basis for filing a suit.
• Statutory Interpretation Limits Its Scope: They maintained that the Limitation Act does not explicitly allow adverse possession claims as a cause of action.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding adverse possession and made several key observations:

1. Possession Is the Root of Title

The Court reaffirmed that possession is fundamental to property rights. It stated:

“Possession confers an enforceable right under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another except by due process of law.”

2. Adverse Possession Requires Clear Conditions

The judgment clarified that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, three conditions must be met:

• Continuous Possession (Nec-Vi): The claimant must have maintained uninterrupted possession for the statutory period.
• Publicly Known Possession (Nec-Clam): The possession must be open and notorious, ensuring the original owner was aware.
• Possession Must Be Adverse (Nec-Precario): The claimant must assert ownership in denial of the true owner’s title.

3. Plaintiffs Can Use Adverse Possession to Reclaim Property

The Court ruled that once ownership is acquired through adverse possession, the new owner can file a suit if dispossessed. It held:

“A person in possession cannot be ousted except by due procedure of law, and once 12 years’ period of adverse possession is over, even the original owner’s right to eject him is lost.”

4. Public Property Should Not Be Subject to Adverse Possession

The Court noted that the doctrine should not be used to claim land dedicated to public use, stating:

“It is advisable that properties reserved for public utility should be explicitly protected from claims of adverse possession.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that adverse possession can be used as both a sword and a shield. It ruled that:

• A person who has perfected title through adverse possession can file a suit for restoration if unlawfully dispossessed.
• The owner loses their right to reclaim the property once the statutory period has lapsed.
• Public properties should not be subject to adverse possession claims.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has profound implications for property law in India:

• Strengthening Property Rights: It reinforces that possession, once matured into ownership, is legally enforceable.
• Clarification on Limitation Act: The decision settles ambiguity regarding whether plaintiffs can claim ownership through adverse possession.
• Protection of Public Land: The ruling discourages adverse possession claims on land meant for public use.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur v. O.V. Narasimha Setty is a landmark ruling that clarifies the application of adverse possession under Indian law. By allowing plaintiffs to claim ownership based on long-term possession, the judgment ensures that legitimate possessors are not unfairly dispossessed. At the same time, the Court has taken steps to prevent misuse of the doctrine for encroaching upon public land.

With this ruling, property disputes involving adverse possession will be adjudicated with a clearer legal framework, ensuring that possessory rights are adequately protected while balancing the interests of rightful owners.

Petitioner Name: Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) Through LRs..
Respondent Name: O.V. Narasimha Setty (D) By LRs. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 08-08-2019.

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 Setty Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-08-2019.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 Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 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