Jaya Devi and Ors v. Vinod and Ors as well as the judgment and decree dated

counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit in the year 1996 namely Original Suit No. 242 of 1996 Inre; Prabhu Dayal Vs. Vinod Kumar and 7 Ors praying for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents herein.

5. The suit had been filed by contending that the plaintiffs were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for a period of more than 14 years. It was contended that the land over which they are claiming possession was Nazool land of which Smt. Radha Devi was a lease holder and she had also executed a will dated

01.12.1994 whereby the said piece of land had been willed to her son and grandson which could not validly be done by her.

6. In support of the plaintiffs being in continuous and uninterrupted possession, various documents had been filed and reliance was placed upon the same.

7. Learned trial Court had framed various issues as emerges from a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25.05.2017 (internal page 5 of the judgment- page 92 of the appeal) of which the issues no. 1 & 2 were as to whether the plaintiffs are in uninterrupted possession since long so as to claim adverse possession and as to whether the plaintiff on the basis of permission give to his wife (wife of the plaintiff) namely Smt. Jai Devi by Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land.

8. Learned trial Court after discussing in detail the evidence which had been led by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants conclusively held that (a) the wife of the plaintiff namely Smt. Jai Devi in Criminal Case No. 1167 of 2004 lodged against her under Sections 504, 447 & 506 I.P.C, a copy of which was available on record as 72 Gha has herself indicated that certain land had been given by Smt. Radha Devi for a period from 06.11.1994 to 05.11.1995 for the purpose of sowing of vegetables and the said period having lapsed consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were in uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for a period of 14 years (b) in an inspection that had been conducted, the learned Commissioner had specifically indicated that over the disputed piece of land, the board of Smt. Radha Devi Mehrotra was found established (c) in Suit No. 503 of 1993, the learned Commissioner had specifically indicated that Smt. Radha Devi is in possession over the land in dispute (d) placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and ors- (2009) 16 SCC 517, three principles were laid down by the Apex Court for the purpose of adverse possession which are (i) as to from which date, the person claims to be in adverse possession of the land (ii) as to the nature of the adverse possession (iii) as to how old is the adverse possession and (iv) as to whether the adverse possession continues or not and the learned trial Court, after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, was of the view that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that they have been in adverse possession of the land in dispute uninterruptedly for a period of 14 years and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by them.

9. The plaintiffs being aggrieved filed an appeal being old appeal no. 100037 of 2017 Inre; Inre; Jaya Devi and Ors Vs. Vinod and Ors.

10. The appellate Court framed the points of determination as emerges from a perusal of the impugned judgment and was also conclusively of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the learned trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their uninterrupted and continuous possession for a period of 14 years on the basis of evidence that has been led by them and thus dismissed the appeal.

11. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.

12. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellants while raising a challenge to both the judgments as passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court are that (a) the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have given findings which are beyond the evidence which was led before them (b) the plaintiffs had filed receipts of a house that was built by them in the year 1984 over the land in dispute which has not been considered by the learned trial Court (c) the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have considered the report of the learned Commissioner which was submitted in some other case which all indicate that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have patently erred in law in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs (d) the State had no locus to enter into the dispute over the land in question.

13. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

14. From the argument as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants it emerges that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 1996 praying for declaration for permanent injunction against the defendants over a piece of land on the basis of adverse possession which land was also said to be Nazool land of which Smt. Radha Devi was a lease holder.

15. In support of the plaintiffs being in continuous and uninterrupted, various documents in the shape of evidence had been filed and reliance was also placed upon the same.

16. Learned trial Court framed various issues of which issues no. 1 & 2 were as to whether the plaintiffs are in uninterrupted possession since long so as to claim adverse possession and as to whether the plaintiffs on the basis of permission give to his wife namely Smt. Jai Devi by Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land.

17. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.2017 held on the basis of evidence on record and considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to indicate as to from which date he claims to be in possession of the land, the nature of adverse possession and as to how old the adverse possession is and whether the adverse possession still continues and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

18. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the appellate Court after determination of the issues after determining the points dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2025 and hence, the second appeal.

19. The substantial questions of law on which the instant appeal has been filed, have been set forth in paragraph 12 of the appeal.

20. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court would indicate that the learned trial Court has painstakingly gone through the entire evidence that has been led by the parties before it and has conclusively held on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) that in order to indicate the adverse possession, there must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.

21. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

11. We deem it appropriate to deal with some important cases decided by this court regarding the principle of adverse possession.

12. In Secretary of State for India V. Debendra Lal Khan AIR 1934 PC 23, it was observed that the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor.

13. This Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy V. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314, while following the ratio of Debendra Lal Khan's case (supra), observed as under: "But it is well settled that in order to establish adverse possession of non-co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits, of the properties. Ouster of the non- possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be one the basis of joint title. The co- heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs' title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co- heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to be knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster." The court further observed thus: "The burden of making out ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title of a co-heir by his adverse possession."

14. In S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254, Hidayatullah, J. speaking for the court observed as under:- "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea."

15. The facts of R. Chandevarappa & Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (1995) 6 SCC 309 are similar to the case at hand. In this case, this court observed as under:- "The question then is whether the appellant has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is seen that a contention was raised before the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant having remained in possession from 1968, he perfected his title by adverse possession. But the crucial facts to constitute adverse possession have not been pleaded. Admittedly the appellant came into possession by a derivative title from the original grantee. It is seen that the original grantee has no right to alienate the land. Therefore, having come into possession under colour of title from original grantee, if the appellant intends to plead adverse possession as against the State, he must disclaim his title and plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of the State and that the State had not taken any action thereon within the prescribed period. Thereby, the appellant's possession would become adverse. No such stand was taken nor evidence has been adduced in this behalf. The counsel in fairness, despite his research, is unable to bring to our notice any such plea having been taken by the appellant."

16. In D.N. Venkatarayappa and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (1997) 7 SCC 567 this court observed as under:- "Therefore, in the absence of crucial pleadings, which constitute adverse possession and evidence to show that the petitioners have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lands in question claiming right, title and interest in the lands in question hostile to the right, title and interest of the original grantees, the petitioners cannot claim that they have perfected their title by adverse possession."

17. In Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. v. Jagadish Kalita & Others (2004) 1 SCC 271, paras 21-22, this Court observed as under: "21. For the purpose of proving adverse possession/ouster, the defendant must also prove animus possidendi.

22. ....We may further observe that in a proper case the court may have to construe the entire pleadings so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the proper plea of adverse possession has been raised in the written statement or not which can also be gathered from the cumulative effect of the averments made therein."

18. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 at para 11, this court observed as under:- "In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period." The court further observed that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one 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, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person 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 establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.

19. In Saroop Singh v. Banto (2005) 8 SCC 330 this Court observed: "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vesantiben Prahaladji Nayak v. Somnath Mulhibhai Nayak (2004) 3 SCC 376)

30. `Animus possidendi' is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagdish Kalita and Others (2004) 1 SCC 271)"

20. This principle has been reiterated later in the case of M. Durai v. Muthu and Others (2007) 3 SCC 114 para 7. This Court observed as under: "...In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the old Limitation Act, the plaintiff was bound to prove his title as also possession within twelve years preceding the date of institution of the suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession."

21. This court had an occasion to examine the concept of adverse possession in T. Anjanappa & Others v. Somalingappa and Another [(2006) 7 SCC 570]. The court observed that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his title was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. The court further observed that the classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.

22. In a relatively recent case in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma and Others (2007) 6 SCC 59] this court again had an occasion to deal with the concept of adverse possession in detail. The court also examined the legal position in various countries particularly in English and American system. We deem it appropriate to reproduce relevant passages in extenso. The court dealing with adverse possession in paras 5 and 6 observed as under:- "5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. [See Downing v. Bird 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958), Arkansas Commemorative Commission v. City of Little Rock 227 Ark. 1085 : 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnot v. Murphy 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929).]

22. From a perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it emerges that the Apex Court has considered various principles for the purpose of proving adverse possession primarily which are that the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and adverse to the competitor.

23. A perusal of the plaint, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the application for interim relief would indicate that there is no specific averment in the plaint by the plaintiffs as to from which date they are having possession of the dispute land.

24. In the written statement, the defendants vehemently objected to the plaintiffs being in possession of the disputed property rather it was specifically averred by them that they are in possession of the property in dispute. It was also indicated in the written statement that the grand mother of the defendants namely Smt. Radha Devi had filed a Suit No. 503 of 1993 against one Sri Mohan Lal which pertains to the same property in which the Advocate Commissioner's report was submitted which indicated that the property belongs to Smt. Radha Devi. The wife of the plaintiffs had been given the disputed land for the period from 06.12.1994 to 05.11.1995 (i.e for a period of eleven months) to look after the same and immediately upon the end of the period, the permission came to an end rather after the period having come to an end, the plaintiffs wanted to grab the land and thus filed a suit in the year 1996 claiming adverse possession.

25. Learned trial Court after considering the learned Advocate Commissioner's report, the establishment of a board indicating the disputed land to be that of Smt. Radha Devi Mehrotra and the learned Advocate Commissioner having specifically indicated that Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land in dispute, dismissed the suit. Thus, it is apparent that if at all, the plaintiffs could be said to be in adverse possession of the land, the same only arose to them after the end of agreement i.e after 05.1995 & the suit was filed in 1996.

26. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) and the fact that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove before the learned trial Court of being in continuous possession of the land in dispute despite having averred to the contrary, no interference is required in the order passed by the learned trial Court which all facts have been appreciated by the learned appellate Court consequently, no interference is required in both the judgments.

27. Even otherwise, both the learned Courts have given specific finding of fact regarding the plaintiffs not having uninterrupted and continuous possession over the land in dispute and thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid finding.

28. Considering the aforesaid, none of the grounds as raised by the appellants are found to be tenable in the eyes of law.

29. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are no substantial questions of law which are to be decided by this Court in second appeal.

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit in the year 1996 namely Original Suit No. 242 of 1996 Inre; Prabhu Dayal Vs. Vinod Kumar and 7 Ors praying for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents herein.

5. The suit had been filed by contending that the plaintiffs were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for a period of more than 14 years. It was contended that the land over which they are claiming possession was Nazool land of which Smt. Radha Devi was a lease holder and she had also executed a will dated

01.12.1994 whereby the said piece of land had been willed to her son and grandson which could not validly be done by her.

6. In support of the plaintiffs being in continuous and uninterrupted possession, various documents had been filed and reliance was placed upon the same.

7. Learned trial Court had framed various issues as emerges from a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 25.05.2017 (internal page 5 of the judgment- page 92 of the appeal) of which the issues no. 1 & 2 were as to whether the plaintiffs are in uninterrupted possession since long so as to claim adverse possession and as to whether the plaintiff on the basis of permission give to his wife (wife of the plaintiff) namely Smt. Jai Devi by Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land.

8. Learned trial Court after discussing in detail the evidence which had been led by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants conclusively held that (a) the wife of the plaintiff namely Smt. Jai Devi in Criminal Case No. 1167 of 2004 lodged against her under Sections 504, 447 & 506 I.P.C, a copy of which was available on record as 72 Gha has herself indicated that certain land had been given by Smt. Radha Devi for a period from 06.11.1994 to 05.11.1995 for the purpose of sowing of vegetables and the said period having lapsed consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were in uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for a period of 14 years (b) in an inspection that had been conducted, the learned Commissioner had specifically indicated that over the disputed piece of land, the board of Smt. Radha Devi Mehrotra was found established (c) in Suit No. 503 of 1993, the learned Commissioner had specifically indicated that Smt. Radha Devi is in possession over the land in dispute (d) placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and ors- (2009) 16 SCC 517, three principles were laid down by the Apex Court for the purpose of adverse possession which are (i) as to from which date, the person claims to be in adverse possession of the land (ii) as to the nature of the adverse possession (iii) as to how old is the adverse possession and (iv) as to whether the adverse possession continues or not and the learned trial Court, after considering the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, was of the view that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that they have been in adverse possession of the land in dispute uninterruptedly for a period of 14 years and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by them.

9. The plaintiffs being aggrieved filed an appeal being old appeal no. 100037 of 2017 Inre; Inre; Jaya Devi and Ors Vs. Vinod and Ors.

10. The appellate Court framed the points of determination as emerges from a perusal of the impugned judgment and was also conclusively of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court whereby the learned trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their uninterrupted and continuous possession for a period of 14 years on the basis of evidence that has been led by them and thus dismissed the appeal.

11. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.

12. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellants while raising a challenge to both the judgments as passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court are that (a) the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have given findings which are beyond the evidence which was led before them (b) the plaintiffs had filed receipts of a house that was built by them in the year 1984 over the land in dispute which has not been considered by the learned trial Court (c) the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have considered the report of the learned Commissioner which was submitted in some other case which all indicate that the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have patently erred in law in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs (d) the State had no locus to enter into the dispute over the land in question.

13. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

14. From the argument as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants it emerges that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 1996 praying for declaration for permanent injunction against the defendants over a piece of land on the basis of adverse possession which land was also said to be Nazool land of which Smt. Radha Devi was a lease holder.

15. In support of the plaintiffs being in continuous and uninterrupted, various documents in the shape of evidence had been filed and reliance was also placed upon the same.

16. Learned trial Court framed various issues of which issues no. 1 & 2 were as to whether the plaintiffs are in uninterrupted possession since long so as to claim adverse possession and as to whether the plaintiffs on the basis of permission give to his wife namely Smt. Jai Devi by Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land.

17. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.2017 held on the basis of evidence on record and considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to indicate as to from which date he claims to be in possession of the land, the nature of adverse possession and as to how old the adverse possession is and whether the adverse possession still continues and accordingly, dismissed the suit.

18. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the appellate Court after determination of the issues after determining the points dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2025 and hence, the second appeal.

19. The substantial questions of law on which the instant appeal has been filed, have been set forth in paragraph 12 of the appeal.

20. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court would indicate that the learned trial Court has painstakingly gone through the entire evidence that has been led by the parties before it and has conclusively held on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) that in order to indicate the adverse possession, there must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.

21. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

11. We deem it appropriate to deal with some important cases decided by this court regarding the principle of adverse possession.

12. In Secretary of State for India V. Debendra Lal Khan AIR 1934 PC 23, it was observed that the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario and the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor.

13. This Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy V. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314, while following the ratio of Debendra Lal Khan's case (supra), observed as under: "But it is well settled that in order to establish adverse possession of non-co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits, of the properties. Ouster of the non- possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be one the basis of joint title. The co- heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs' title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co- heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to be knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster." The court further observed thus: "The burden of making out ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title of a co-heir by his adverse possession."

14. In S.M.Karim v. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254, Hidayatullah, J. speaking for the court observed as under:- "Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. There is no evidence here when possession became adverse, if it at all did and a mere suggestion in the relief clause that there was an uninterrupted possession for "several 12 years" or that the plaintiff had acquired "an absolute title was not enough to raise such a plea. Long possession is not necessarily adverse possession and the prayer clause is not a substitute for a plea."

15. The facts of R. Chandevarappa & Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (1995) 6 SCC 309 are similar to the case at hand. In this case, this court observed as under:- "The question then is whether the appellant has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is seen that a contention was raised before the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant having remained in possession from 1968, he perfected his title by adverse possession. But the crucial facts to constitute adverse possession have not been pleaded. Admittedly the appellant came into possession by a derivative title from the original grantee. It is seen that the original grantee has no right to alienate the land. Therefore, having come into possession under colour of title from original grantee, if the appellant intends to plead adverse possession as against the State, he must disclaim his title and plead his hostile claim to the knowledge of the State and that the State had not taken any action thereon within the prescribed period. Thereby, the appellant's possession would become adverse. No such stand was taken nor evidence has been adduced in this behalf. The counsel in fairness, despite his research, is unable to bring to our notice any such plea having been taken by the appellant."

16. In D.N. Venkatarayappa and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others (1997) 7 SCC 567 this court observed as under:- "Therefore, in the absence of crucial pleadings, which constitute adverse possession and evidence to show that the petitioners have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lands in question claiming right, title and interest in the lands in question hostile to the right, title and interest of the original grantees, the petitioners cannot claim that they have perfected their title by adverse possession."

17. In Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. v. Jagadish Kalita & Others (2004) 1 SCC 271, paras 21-22, this Court observed as under: "21. For the purpose of proving adverse possession/ouster, the defendant must also prove animus possidendi.

22. ....We may further observe that in a proper case the court may have to construe the entire pleadings so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the proper plea of adverse possession has been raised in the written statement or not which can also be gathered from the cumulative effect of the averments made therein."

18. In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 at para 11, this court observed as under:- "In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period." The court further observed that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one 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, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person 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 establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.

19. In Saroop Singh v. Banto (2005) 8 SCC 330 this Court observed: "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vesantiben Prahaladji Nayak v. Somnath Mulhibhai Nayak (2004) 3 SCC 376)

30. `Animus possidendi' is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagdish Kalita and Others (2004) 1 SCC 271)"

20. This principle has been reiterated later in the case of M. Durai v. Muthu and Others (2007) 3 SCC 114 para 7. This Court observed as under: "...In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the old Limitation Act, the plaintiff was bound to prove his title as also possession within twelve years preceding the date of institution of the suit under the Limitation Act, 1963, once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession."

21. This court had an occasion to examine the concept of adverse possession in T. Anjanappa & Others v. Somalingappa and Another [(2006) 7 SCC 570]. The court observed that a person who bases his title on adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his title was hostile to the real owner and amounted to denial of his title to the property claimed. The court further observed that the classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action.

22. In a relatively recent case in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma and Others (2007) 6 SCC 59] this court again had an occasion to deal with the concept of adverse possession in detail. The court also examined the legal position in various countries particularly in English and American system. We deem it appropriate to reproduce relevant passages in extenso. The court dealing with adverse possession in paras 5 and 6 observed as under:- "5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. [See Downing v. Bird 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958), Arkansas Commemorative Commission v. City of Little Rock 227 Ark. 1085 : 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); Monnot v. Murphy 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913); City of Rock Springs v. Sturm 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929).]

22. From a perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it emerges that the Apex Court has considered various principles for the purpose of proving adverse possession primarily which are that the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and adverse to the competitor.

23. A perusal of the plaint, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the application for interim relief would indicate that there is no specific averment in the plaint by the plaintiffs as to from which date they are having possession of the dispute land.

24. In the written statement, the defendants vehemently objected to the plaintiffs being in possession of the disputed property rather it was specifically averred by them that they are in possession of the property in dispute. It was also indicated in the written statement that the grand mother of the defendants namely Smt. Radha Devi had filed a Suit No. 503 of 1993 against one Sri Mohan Lal which pertains to the same property in which the Advocate Commissioner's report was submitted which indicated that the property belongs to Smt. Radha Devi. The wife of the plaintiffs had been given the disputed land for the period from 06.12.1994 to 05.11.1995 (i.e for a period of eleven months) to look after the same and immediately upon the end of the period, the permission came to an end rather after the period having come to an end, the plaintiffs wanted to grab the land and thus filed a suit in the year 1996 claiming adverse possession.

25. Learned trial Court after considering the learned Advocate Commissioner's report, the establishment of a board indicating the disputed land to be that of Smt. Radha Devi Mehrotra and the learned Advocate Commissioner having specifically indicated that Smt. Radha Devi is in possession of the land in dispute, dismissed the suit. Thus, it is apparent that if at all, the plaintiffs could be said to be in adverse possession of the land, the same only arose to them after the end of agreement i.e after 05.1995 & the suit was filed in 1996.

26. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat (supra) and the fact that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove before the learned trial Court of being in continuous possession of the land in dispute despite having averred to the contrary, no interference is required in the order passed by the learned trial Court which all facts have been appreciated by the learned appellate Court consequently, no interference is required in both the judgments.

27. Even otherwise, both the learned Courts have given specific finding of fact regarding the plaintiffs not having uninterrupted and continuous possession over the land in dispute and thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid finding.

28. Considering the aforesaid, none of the grounds as raised by the appellants are found to be tenable in the eyes of law.

29. Accordingly, the Court finds that there are no substantial questions of law which are to be decided by this Court in second appeal.

30. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench