Introduction:
Adverse possession is a legal concept that allows a person to claim ownership of land if they have openly and continuously occupied it for a specified period, typically 12 years.The law surrounding adverse possession has evolved over time through various judicial decisions.
Settled Position for Adverse Possession:
Adverse possession is primarily governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The key elements for a successful claim of adverse possession include:
- Possession: The possession must be “adverse” to the true owner, meaning it must be without their consent.
- Open and Notorious: The possession must be open, visible, and known to the true owner.
- Continuous: The possession should be uninterrupted and continuous for the statutory period, typically 12 years.
- Hostile Claim: The possession should be accompanied by an intention to possess the property as one’s own.
Latest Judicial Decisions:
Several recent judicial decisions have reaffirmed and clarified the principles of adverse possession. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently on 9th August, 2023 in the matter of Government of Kerala and Anr. vs. Joseph and Ors., while expanding further on the law on adverse possession and ownership of immovable property, held that, for granting a claim of adverse possession over a disputed property, “a clear, continuous and hostile possession would have to be established by way of cogent evidence and animus possidendi must be demonstrated.”
According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, the essential element laid out was that a person claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent evidence to substantiate claims of adverse possession. The Apex Court, while deciding the aforesaid matter, elaborated on the meaning of , “adverse possession” and held that for possession to be adverse, “Possession must be open, clear, continuous and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party; all three classic requirements must coexist i.e., adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity; and adverse to a competitor, in denial to title and knowledge“. The Hon’ble Apex Court further stated that mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own. The Hon’ble Court also stated that the clear and continuous possession must be accompanied by the intention to possess or dispossess the rightful owner.
The Hon’ble Court further detailed that though the burden lied on the landowner to prove their title, the burden of proof rests on the person claiming adverse possession.
The recent judgment of the Apex Court provides extensive clarity on the fundamentals of adverse possession. It certainly will aid in reducing frivolous ownership claims of adverse possession.