M. Radheshyamlal vs. V Sandhya and Anr. Etc.
Background
A Chennai property originally belonged to one Sungani Bai, who in 1945 settled it by a registered deed on three persons, whose successors eventually sold it to the respondents in 2001. The appellant, who had been occupying the property, sued claiming he had acquired ownership by adverse possession, alleging 45 years of open and continuous possession. The respondents, in turn, filed their own suit for possession based on their 2001 sale deed. The trial court and, later, the High Court ruled against the appellant on all fronts, prompting three connected appeals to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal test for adverse possession: the claimant must plead and prove the exact date possession began, that it was hostile to the true owner's knowledge, and that it was open, continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period. Examining the appellant's own pleadings, the Court found he never clearly asserted possession adverse to the true owner's knowledge, and his claims of "45 years" and "35 years" of possession in different documents (the plaint versus an earlier police complaint) were inconsistent with each other. Combined with the appellant's failure to prove he ever paid property taxes, the Court held there was no proper foundation for the adverse possession claim and dismissed the appeals, though it granted the appellant, who is over 80, extended time (until 31 March 2025) to vacate, subject to filing an undertaking.
Lesson Learnt
A claim of ownership through adverse possession fails without precise, consistent pleading of exactly when hostile possession began and proof that it was open and known to the true owner throughout the statutory period: vague or shifting claims about "how long" one has possessed a property will not succeed in court.