Property Law

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur

(2019) 8 SCC 729; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 975

Facts

Conflicting Supreme Court decisions had arisen on whether a person claiming title by adverse possession could:
use it only as a defence; or
institute a suit for declaration, injunction or recovery of possession.
Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat had stated that adverse possession could be used only as a shield and not as a sword.
Several possessors claiming completion of the statutory period argued that this left them without a remedy even after the original owner’s title had been extinguished.
The question was referred for authoritative determination.

Whether a person who has perfected title by adverse possession can file a suit based on that title.
Whether adverse possession merely bars the original owner’s remedy or affirmatively creates an enforceable proprietary right.

Article 65 of the Limitation Act gives the true owner twelve years to recover possession from the date possession becomes adverse.
Section 27 provides that expiry of the limitation period extinguishes the original owner’s right to the property.
Adverse possession must be:
actual;
open;
continuous;
exclusive;
hostile to the true owner; and
maintained for the full statutory period.
Long possession or unauthorised possession alone is insufficient.
Once title has matured, the possessor may use it both defensively and affirmatively.

If the original owner’s title is extinguished after the statutory period, the corresponding prescriptive title accrues to the adverse possessor.
It would be logically inconsistent to recognise that title when the possessor is sued but deny it when:
the possessor is unlawfully dispossessed; or
another person threatens the perfected right.
Article 65 uses the broad expression “suit for possession based on title.”
Title perfected through prescription falls within that language.
Such a possessor may therefore seek:
declaration of title;
injunction against interference; or
recovery of possession after illegal dispossession.
The judgment did not dilute the strict proof required.
A claimant must clearly establish when possession became hostile and how the true owner was excluded.
Permissive possession, possession of a tenant, or ordinary possession of a co-owner does not become adverse without a clear hostile assertion.
The Court overruled the contrary proposition in Gurudwara Sahib.

Adverse possession may be used as both a shield and a sword.
A person whose title has matured by adverse possession can maintain a suit for declaration, injunction or possession.
The original owner’s right is extinguished under Section 27 after limitation expires.
The claimant must still prove every element of hostile and continuous possession.