HEMAJI WAGHAJI JAT v. BHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARIJAN & Ors.

owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Ag- A grieved by the judgment of the trial Court, respondents preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the first ap- pellate Court. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 8 Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The first appellate court and the High Court have clearly held that the appellant has failed to establish his title over the suit property. The appellant also failed to c establish that he has perfected his title over the suit prop- ertY by way of adverse possession. (Para - 10) [825-G]

1.2 In the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India, this Court observed that the plea of adverse pos- session is not a pure question of law but a blended one D of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, E and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A per- son pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and estabJish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Para - 18) [829 B-D] F Secretary of State for India v. Debendra Lal Khan AIR (1934) PC 23; P Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR (1957) SC 314; S. M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina AIR (1964) SC 1254; R. Chandevarappa & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others G (1995) 6 SCC 309; D. N. Venkatarayappa and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (1997) 7 SCC 567; Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. v. Jagadish Kalita & Others (2004) 1 SCC 271 and Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 1 o sec T79 - relied on. H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ~ A

1.3 In the case of P T Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma & Others*, this Court observed that the right of property is now considered to be not only a constitu- tional or statutory right but also a human right. In the said case, this Court observed that "Human rights have been B historically considered in the realm of individual rights such as, right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment, etc. but now human rights are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to property is also con- sidered very much a part of the new dimension. There- c fore, even claim of adverse pos!>ession has to be read in that context. (Paras- 23) [831-H 832-A]