Whether a person acquires right to retain possession if there is entry in revenue record regarding his possession?

Coming to the question whether the plaintiff was placed in possession by
Buchamma, in our opinion, it is apparent that Yashoda was enjoying the property in her
lifetime, though it appears that defendant no. 3 was residing with Yashoda, but she has
not claimed any derogatory title to Yashoda nor has claimed adverse possession. Her
claim of an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found established. The entry of
possession in some revenue records simplicitor does not confer any right to defendant
no. 3 to retain the possession of the property. The property on the death of Yashoda had
been passed on to Buchamma being class IInd heir, as such she had the right to sell the
property to plaintiff. Even if Buchamma had not placed plaintiff in possession of
property on strength of his title conferred by way of sale deed in question he had right to
recover possession. The first appellate Court was thus right in decreeing the suit. The
High Court has erred in allowing appeal.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs. 
V
Muddasani Sarojana 
Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 288

Print Page

Distinction between adverse possession and possession simpliciter

There is a distinction between adverse possession and possession simpliciter. An adverse possession cannot operate in the vaccum. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies not merely to the want of actual possession by the real owner, it comes into operative play only when an individual in occupation of the statutory period is such occupation in denial of the title of the real owner. There can be no adverse possession without animus to prescribe.

84.The question of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact. If persons claim title by adverse possession, it is their duty to make specific allegation in the Plaint and lead evidence on facts from which they can ask the Courts to drawn inference that the established facts amount to adverse possession in law.

85.In law, a possession which can be referred to a lawful title cannot be considered as adverse in law.

It is to be noted that where plaintiff makes a claim to the property that he is the owner of the same, he cannot plead adverse possession, in the considered opinion of this Court.

If there is no evidence to prove possession for well over two decades, then, ordinarily the claim of adverse possession/title is also not proved, as opined by this Court.

It is an axiomatic principle in law that the acts amounting to adverse possession must be scrutinised in the light of relationship that exists between the parties.

In the decision Bhageerathi Ammal V. Kuppalammal and others, 1990-Vol.1-MLJ-463 at page 464, it is held that 'the co-owners cannot claim adverse possession unless there is strong proof of ouster.'

To constitute adverse possession between near relatives the evidence of ouster must be very strong as per decision in Puttathayamma and another V. Rathnarajiah and another, AIR 1955 Mysore 33.

In Perumal V. Boyot Selvacarassou, Power Agent, Boyot, Virappin (2002) 2 MLJ 150, it is held that 'the rights of real owner cannot be defeated without clear details regarding adverse possession.'

In Munusamy Gounder and another V. Sadasivam, (2005) 1 MLJ 584, it is observed that 'the Plaintiff having denied the title of the Defendant has failed to prove adverse title and as such, the relief of declaration cannot be granted.'

Madras High Court

Chinnammal (Died) vs Kaliammal (Died) on 20 February, 2012

S.A. No. 488 of 1992

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

Print Page