Landmark Judgment by Supreme Court of India on Adverse Possession: Govt. Of Kerala vs Joseph on 9 August, 2023

Supreme Court, in its recent decision of Government of Kerala & Anr. V. Joseph and Others discussed several principles concerning the adverse possession. When Adverse Possession Is Claimed Over Government Land, Courts Must Act With Greater Care. The Supreme Court, while placing its reliance on the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (2000) 5 SCC 652, opined that when the disputed belongs to government. 

Observations by Supreme Court, as mentioned in its Judgement: 

Advertisements

“Here, we are concerned with the respondents staking claim on property which undisputedly belongs to the state. Keeping in view the principles hitherto reproduced, we may once again, with benefit, refer to Harphool Singh (supra), this Court observed :

“12. So far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession and that too in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for the reason that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third-party encroacher title where he had none. The decision in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy [AIR 1957 SC 314 : 1957 SCR 195] adverted to the ordinary classical requirement — that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario — that is the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It was also observed therein that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession, his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the required animus. In the decision reported in Secy. of State for India in Council v. Debendra Lal Khan [(1933) 61 IA 78 : 1934 All LJ 153 (PC)] strongly relied on for the respondents, the Court laid down further that it is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running, ought if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening and if the rights of the Crown have been openly usurped it cannot be heard to plead that the fact was not brought to its notice. In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant [(1995) 2 SCC 543 : AIR 1995 SC 895] it was observed that a claim of adverse possession being a hostile assertion involving expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner, the burden is always on the person who asserts such a claim to prove by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and in deciding such claim, the courts must have regard to the animus of the person doing those acts.” (Emphasis supplied)

Read Blog on Adverse Possession

What Is Adverse Possession?

According to the doctrine of adverse possession, if a person holds the possession of property owned by someone else for more than 12 years, he will become the owner of that property. The theory behind this rule is that the law and equity don’t help a person who sleeps over his right.  As per experts, In our Indian laws, there is no special provision for the doctrine of adverse possession.

The Supreme Court of India has given its latest judgment on adverse possession in 2019 in the case of Indra Kaur Grewal Vs Manjeet Kaur. The apex court has cleared all the doubts related to adverse possession and given its judgment that if a person has possession of the immovable property for more than 12 years, he can take ownership of that property. Before this judgment, the plea of adverse possession was taken by the defendant only. But under the judgment of the Supreme Court, it stated that the person as a plaintiff can also file the suit for the ownership of the property in case of adverse possession.