Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (Dead) by LRs. v. O.V. Narasimha Setty (Dead) by LRs.
Background
This was a decades-old property dispute tracing back to before India's independence, between the successors of two families over land originally purchased in 1942. One side's predecessor had managed the property under a power of attorney for the other, and after the attorney was revoked, decades of litigation followed over who truly owned and possessed the land. The High Court ultimately held that the appellants' predecessor was not in possession of the property when the original suit was filed, ruling against them.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had gravely erred in finding that the appellants' predecessor was not in possession, since the respondents' side had failed to show how they ever came into possession of the property themselves. The Court relied on the recent larger Bench ruling in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019), which held that a plea of adverse possession can be used both offensively (as a "sword") by a plaintiff seeking to enforce title, and not merely defensively. Applying this, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's original decree in favour of the appellants.
Lesson Learnt
Long, continuous possession of property can itself become a source of legal title (adverse possession), and a person who has perfected such title can actively sue to recover or protect the property, not just defend against being evicted from it.