Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of three civil appeals involving a preliminary issue: whether a plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court noted that a three-judge bench in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. had already decided this issue on August 7, 2019. In that decision, the Court held that adverse possession requires the coexistence of three classic elements: nec vi (adequate in continuity), nec clam (adequate in publicity), and nec precario (adverse to a competitor in denial of title). It clarified that trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession, and that possession must be visible, notorious, and peaceful. The Court further held that once the 12-year period of adverse possession is complete, the owner's right to eject is lost, and the possessory owner acquires title. This perfected title can be used as a sword by the plaintiff or as a shield by the defendant. The Court overruled earlier decisions in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj, and Dharampal v. Punjab Wakf Board, which had held otherwise. Applying this ruling, the Supreme Court found that the preliminary issue in the present appeals was fully covered by Ravinder Kaur Grewal. Consequently, the Court directed that the matters be placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate bench. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran on August 8, 2019.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Article 65 - Plaintiff's Plea - The court considered whether a plaintiff can sue based on adverse possession. Following Ravinder Kaur Grewal, it held that a plaintiff who has perfected title by adverse possession can maintain a suit for restoration of possession or other relief, and the plea is available as a sword and shield. (Paras 1-2) B) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Requirements - The court reiterated the classic requirements of adverse possession: nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, requiring visible, notorious, peaceful possession with animus possidendi. Trespasser's long possession is not synonymous with adverse possession. (Para 1) C) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Overruling of Precedents - The court overruled Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj, and Dharampal v. Punjab Wakf Board, holding that the plea of adverse possession can be taken by a plaintiff under Article 65. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession in view of the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The preliminary issue is covered by Ravinder Kaur Grewal. The matters are to be placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate Bench.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Article 65 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Plaintiff can sue on perfected title
- Overruling of earlier decisions
