Introduction
Adverse possession simply means when someone who is not the original owner of a property continue to use it for a certain period of time which legally makes him the owner of said property this means when a person continued to live without a proper renewal of agreement for certain. He would be able to legally acquire that property.
When we talk about immovable property as per the limitation at article 65 specifies that person can claim the title through adverse possession if he has continued to stay there for a period of 12 years or more. When we talk about immovable property which is originally owned by the government in that case a person shall get the adverse possession of such property yes he has continued to stay there for a period of more than 30 years or 30 years this is also specified under article 112 of the limitation act.
Adverse possession is usually seen as an answer only concept of legal flow of law as a person is deprived of his original rights over the property to a person who was only staying there and had only Russian right. It is usually seen as a heated topic because more than transferring of the property it is like acquiring someone else’s property.
Issue
How can a person claim adverse possession? What are the requirements of law in order to gain adverse possession.
Essential Ingredients
Essential ingredients to claim adverse possession over a property can be:-
1. The property should be movable or
immovable in nature.
2. The property should be tangible.
3. Possession is acquired legally.
4. The person claiming adverse possession was
solely having the possession of the property and no other person.
5. There should be no interruption in
enjoyment of the property for the same.
6. It can only be given is the completion of
time is done under article 65 and article 112 of the Limitation Act.
7. There should be intention on the part of
the party to acquire the ownership of the said property.
8. The original owner shall be disposed of his ownership on the property.
The legal maxim which dictates- “Nec Vi, Nec Clam, Nec Precario” is to be looked upon when the matter of adverse possession arises. It means that the party which is claiming the title of a property via adverse possession has to prove that his possession was peaceful, open and continuous.
Exceptions
While adverse possession shall be given to a person who has been staying continuously for a period of 12 years in private property, and a period of 30 years in a government property, there are various exceptions to this. Which means that even if you were staying for the said period for up in the property without any disturbance there shall be certain exceptions and events wherein you wouldn’t get the adverse possession in spite of the fulfilment of the essential ingredients:-
1. If the person who is the owner of the property which means the
person who originally has the title over the property is a minor that is below
the age of 18 years
2. If the person who is the owner of the
property which means the person who originally has the title over the property is
not mentally fit and therefore cannot take decisions properly by applying his
mind.
3. Who is the person who is the owner of the
property which means the person who originally has the title over the property
is serving the armed forces of the country in that case in that case.
Burden of Proof
In the case of adverse possession the burden of proof is on the party who is claiming for the position in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Ors.[1] The court held that adverse possession is a question of both facts and law therefore a person who is claiming adverse possession will have to prove on what date and what time did he come into the possession of the property, what was his nature of possession, also he will have to prove how long has he been having the possession of the property, whether his factum of possession was known to the other party which is the original owner, and whether his possession was open peaceful and undisturbed.
In the case of Dagadabhai By Legal Representative v. Abbas[2] the court held that there can be chances or circumstances where in the person who is claiming the adverse position will first have to prove that the person who is the true owner of the property has the title over the property. Which means that before proving that he has the adverse possession, he will have to prove that the other party which is the original owner has the title over the property.
As per the provisions article 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, the person who is claiming the title over the property and will have to prove that he had the title and possession physical possession of the property since 12 years in case of private property and since 30 years in case of a government property.
Co-owner’s claim of Adverse Possession
In the case of Vidya Devi by Legal Representative v. Prem Prakash & Ors.[3] the court held that in cases where there is a co-owner of a property, which means that there is a property which has two or more than two owners, in that case a person being a co-owner can get adverse possession of the property if he is able to prove in the court of law that he has ousted all the other co-owners and he constitutes the essential ingredients of adverse possession. He will have to prove that he had the hostile animus to acquire the property, he had enjoyed a long period of undisturbed possession of the property which is more than 12 years in private property, and that he exercises the right of exclusive ownership which is in the knowledge of the other co-owners of the property.
Landmark Case Laws
The long disputed Ayodhya Case- M. Siddiq through Legal Representative vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.[4] was adjudged last year in 2019, where in the claim of adverse possession was raised by the Sunni Central Waqf board in its suit which was filed. The Muslims plead that even if there was a Hindu temple on which the Babri Masjid was constructed about more than 500 years ago, the Muslims can claim adverse possession for this property as they had long exclusive and continuous possession and therefore the Hindu right title of this property should be disposed of with.
However, the court dismissed this plea and relied on the observations that were made in Karnataka Board of Waqf v. Government of India[5] stating that the Muslims who were claiming the adverse possession will have to prove and show when did they come into the possession of the land, what was the nature of their possession, how long has their possession continued, whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, and whether the possession was open and peaceful and undisturbed. The court also held that the Muslims did not have a peaceful open and continues possession of the entire property as there were no factual evidences to prove the same.
In the case of P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma & Ors[6]. this case the court laid down certain guidelines which have to be kept in mind by the courts when a plea of adverse possession is claimed by or some person. The two guidelines were that the court will first have to look at the limitation provision, i.e. limitation period should not be passed for claiming the adverse possession. The court also held that the intention of the owner should also be taken into consideration with respect to disposing the property this means that if the original owner does not express urgency and his intention to keep the property and fight against the adverse possession claim, the title more or less automatically shifts to the adverse possessor.
In the case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors., [7]the Supreme Court observed that the concept of adverse possession allows a trespasser, a person who is guilty of a tort, or a crime in the eyes of law, can also gain legal title to a land which he had illegally possessed for 12 years. The court held that when such a person through adverse possession makes his illegality legal which is absolutely absurd, immoral and against the greater public good. The court further held that no government departments, public undertaking, and police departments should be allowed to perfect the title of land and grab the property of its own citizens through the provisions of adverse possession, which was seen in this particular case. The Apex Court also recommended the Union of India to immediately consider and seriously deliberate to make amendments in the law of adverse possession or to abolish it.
Conclusion
Looking at various case laws and the facts & circumstances that prevailed, it can be made clear that claiming adverse possession can be difficult. The decisions of the courts are not entirely upon the facts but also on the fulfilment of the essential ingredients. There Is no straightforward formula to get the title of a property by this provision. However, it can be concluded from taking into account courts decisions, that the basic ingredients at least needs to be met with in order to have a successful claim.
Also read- RAM JANMABHUMI BABRI MASJID CASE
Also read- HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE
[1] Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 779
[2] Dagadabhai By Legal Representative v. Abbas . (2017) 13 SCC 705 .
[3] Vidya Devi by Legal Representative v. Prem Prakash & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 496.
[4] M. Siddiq through Legal Representative vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2020) 1 SCC 1.
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Others v. Revamma & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 59.
[7] State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 559.
0 Comments