Narasamma & Ors. v. A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through LRs.
Background
A Bangalore property owner sued his tenant's family in 1989 to recover a site that had been let out rent-free decades earlier for running a fuel depot, on the understanding that it would be vacated on demand. The tenant's family (the appellants) claimed instead that the property had actually been sold to them in 1976 under an unregistered agreement of sale and a later power of attorney, and alternatively claimed they had acquired ownership by adverse possession. The trial court found the sale documents to be doctored (erased seals, altered dates, traced signatures) but still ruled in the family's favour on adverse possession; the Karnataka High Court reversed this and ordered them to hand over the property.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. It held that a party cannot simultaneously claim ownership through a 1976 sale document and claim adverse possession from the very same date and event: the two pleas are legally inconsistent, since adverse possession requires disclaiming the original owner's title and asserting hostile, open possession from an identifiable point, which was never established here. Since the sale and power-of-attorney documents were found (by both lower courts) to be fabricated, the adverse-possession claim collapsed along with the ownership claim. The Court did give the occupying family time until 31 December 2020 to vacate, in view of their long possession.
Lesson Learnt
You cannot argue in court that you own a property under a sale deed and, in the alternative, that you have gained it through adverse possession from the same date: these claims cancel each other out, so pick a consistent legal position and back it with genuine, unaltered documents.