Supreme Court of India Judgments on Adverse Possession

Supreme Court of India Judgments on Adverse Possession

The Supreme Court of India has issued several judgments on adverse possession over the years. Adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a person to claim ownership of a property if they have been in continuous possession of it for a certain period of time, without the owner taking any legal action to recover it. Here are some of the important judgments on adverse possession by the Supreme Court of India:

1. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019): The Supreme Court held that adverse possession cannot be claimed over a property that is the subject of a pending litigation, and that a person in possession of such property cannot acquire ownership rights by adverse possession.
2. K. Vanamala v. H. M. Ranganatha Bhatta (2013): The Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession must prove that their possession of the property was open, continuous, and hostile to the rights of the true owner. Mere possession without these elements is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
3. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Anr. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2012): The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in an adverse possession claim is on the person claiming adverse possession. They must prove that they have been in continuous possession of the property for the statutory period of time (which is generally 12 years) and that their possession was adverse to the rights of the true owner.
4. Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (2011): The Supreme Court held that a person who acquires property through adverse possession does not acquire clear title to the property, but only the title of the person whose rights have been extinguished by adverse possession.
5. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987): The Supreme Court held that adverse possession cannot be claimed against the government, as the government is not subject to the statute of limitation.

These are some of the important judgments on adverse possession by the Supreme Court of India. However, it is important to note that each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances, and the law on adverse possession may evolve over time based on new cases and legal developments.

Supreme Court of India Judgments on Adverse Possession

The Supreme Court of India has issued several judgments related to adverse possession. Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows a person to claim ownership of a property if they have possessed it continuously and openly for a certain period of time, usually 12 years or more, without the owner’s objection. Here are some important Supreme Court judgments related to adverse possession in India:

1. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the possession of a property by a person claiming adverse possession must be actual, visible, continuous, and exclusive. The court also held that the owner of the property must have been aware of the possession and failed to take action to recover the property.
2. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Anr. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession must prove that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous for the required period, and that they had the intention to possess the property as their own.
3. Gurpreet Singh v. Baljit Singh & Ors. (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession must prove that they had possession of the property without any acknowledgement of the true owner’s title. The court also held that the possession must be exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted for the required period.
4. Bimla Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession must have been in possession of the property for the entire statutory period, and that their possession must have been open, continuous, and exclusive.
5. K.S. Ahlawat & Ors. v. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in adverse possession cases lies with the person claiming adverse possession. The court also held that the possession must be open, peaceful, and continuous for the required period.

These are some of the important Supreme Court judgments related to adverse possession in India. It is important to note that each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances, and the outcome may vary depending on the specific case.

Supreme Court of India Judgments on Adverse Possession

Adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a person to claim ownership of a property by occupying it continuously and openly for a certain period of time. The Supreme Court of India has delivered several judgments on adverse possession over the years. Here are some of the key judgments:

1. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot claim adverse possession of a property if the property is owned by a deity. The court also clarified that the concept of adverse possession does not apply to public properties.

2. Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. (2011)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession of a property must prove that they have been in continuous possession of the property for the entire prescriptive period, which is generally 12 years. The court also clarified that the possession must be open, hostile, and uninterrupted.

3. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot claim adverse possession of a property if they are not in possession of the property for the entire prescriptive period. The court also clarified that mere payment of property taxes or maintenance charges does not confer ownership rights over the property.

4. K. Satyanarayana v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (2009)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person claiming adverse possession of a property must prove that they have been in exclusive possession of the property, and that the possession has been open, continuous, and uninterrupted for the entire prescriptive period.

Overall, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a person claiming adverse possession of a property must prove that they have been in continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile possession of the property for the entire prescriptive period, and that the possession must be open and exclusive. The court has also clarified that adverse possession does not apply to public properties or properties owned by deities.