Brijesh Kumar and Another v. Shardabai (Dead) by LRs. and Others
Background
A dispute arose over a small plot of land in Madhya Pradesh that had originally belonged to two landowners, was sold to one Urmila Devi in 1972, and later resold by her to the appellants in 1989, who took possession and built on it. A plaintiff named Matadin sued in 1990 claiming he had acquired the land by adverse possession based on old land-record (Khasra) entries from 1960-61, and sought to have the earlier sale deeds declared void. The trial court ruled in the plaintiff's favour, the first appellate court reversed that decision, and the High Court in second appeal restored the plaintiff's decree, prompting the purchasers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings in second appeal were perverse, as the evidence clearly showed that Urmila Devi had taken possession of the land before the 12-year adverse possession period claimed by the plaintiff could have matured, making his claim legally unsustainable. The Court reiterated the well-established legal test for adverse possession, the claimant must affirmatively prove the date he came into possession, the nature and continuity of that possession, and that it was open, hostile, and known to the true owner for the statutory period, and found the plaintiff had failed to discharge this burden, relying instead on suspicious land-record entries and an afterthought claim introduced only after evidence was recorded. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the first appellate court's order dismissing the suit, and allowed the appeals.
Lesson Learnt
A person claiming land by "adverse possession" bears a strict burden to prove exactly when and how continuous, open, and hostile possession began and was maintained for the full statutory period: courts will not presume such possession from ambiguous or suspicious land records, and the true owner's documented chain of sale takes precedence absent clear proof to the contrary.