Case Law - Adverse Possession

<!-- Go to www.addthis.com/dashboard to customize your tools -->

<script src="//s7.addthis.com/js/300/addthis_widget.js#pubid=ra-5db34876a42bb431" type="text/javascript"></script>

*Adverse possession* - Absence of pleading and issues - Trial Court decreed the suit on ground of adverse possession - First Appellate Court set aside the judgment being erroneous and unsustainable and upheld by High Court - Findings of first appellate Court and High Court upheld.
2008(4) Civil Court Cases 558 (S.C.)

*Adverse possession* - Acquiescence - Defendant raising construction on land of plaintiff- Plaintiff filing suit for possession after a gap of 8 years - No evidence that plaintiff had knowledge of or did not object to construction being raised by defendant at any time - Held, that simply because plaintiff filed suit for possession after a gap of 8 years, doctrine of acquiescence is not attracted.
2004(3) Civil Court Cases 149 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Adverse possessor has no title or ownership in property - In fact, whole concept of adverse possession is in denial of title - It does not contemplate acquisition of title by prescription - He has right to remain in possession of property, if his possession is adverse of true owner, who is not entitled to take possession of property after the prescribed limit u/art 65 of Limitation Act.
2015(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 169 (P&H)

*Adverse possession* - Against Govt. - Should be for a period of more than thirty years - Possession of claimant must be actual, open and visible, hostile to the owner i.e. necessarily with the knowledge of the owner and continuous during the entire period - It should be adequate in continuity, publicity and in extent - Mere vague or doubtful assertions that claimant is in adverse possession is not sufficient - Unexplained, stray or sporadic entries for a year or for a few years not sufficient and should be ignored - Only entries based on appropriate documents like grants, title deeds etc. or based upon actual verification of physical possession by an authority authorized to recognize such possession and make appropriate entries can be used against the government - It also requires clear and categorical pleadings and evidence.
2011(2) Civil Court Cases 0374 (S.C.)

*Adverse possession* - Against stranger and co - owner - Distinction - In the case of stranger, it is sufficient that the adverse possession is overt and without any attempt of concealment - When the adverse possession is open, visible and notorious, if the owner remains ignorant and indifferent, he cannot complain regarding the nature of possession by the person claiming adverse possession - In the case of adverse possession as against co - owner, it must be proved that the other co - owner has ousted him openly denying his title and to the knowledge of the other co - owner - The possession of a co - owner is otherwise possession of all the co - owners - The Court has to consider various factors to find out as to whether a co - owner was ousted by the other co - owner.
1999(3) Civil Court Cases 22 (All.)

*Adverse possession* - Alternative plea of adverse possession is unsustainable, mutually destructive and liable to be rejected.
2015(1) Civil Court Cases 026 (Kerala)

*Adverse possession* - Alternative pleas of title and adverse possession - Plea of title pursuant to a sale document defeats the plea of adverse possession.
2019(1) Civil Court Cases 213 (S.C.)

*Adverse possession* - Amongst co - owners - In what circumstances it can be - Indicated.
1987 Civil Court Cases 142 (Kerala)

*Adverse possession* - Amongst co - owners - In what circumstances it can be - Indicated. It is not enough to establish ouster that the other co - owners or the co - owners have/has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties but he/they should establish by good evidence that their possession has been openly in repudiation and denial of title of the co - owner who was out of possession and to his knowledge.
1989 Civil Court Cases 111 (Kerala)

*Adverse possession* - Amongst co - owners - There must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster - The burden of proving ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title proved by a co - owner & he has to prove something more than the ingredients which are required to prove adverse possession.
1999(3) Civil Court Cases 22 (All.)