2019 INSC 0424
     REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.7768 OF 2011
Mallikarjunaiah               ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Nanjaiah & Ors.            …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the High Court
of   Karnataka   at   Bangalore   in   RSA   No.   23   of   2005
whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed
by the appellant herein.
1

2. A   few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the
disposal of this appeal.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents
are   the   defendants   of   the   civil   suit   out   of   which   this
appeal arises.
4. The   civil   suit   leading   to   this   appeal   was   filed   by
the   appellant(plaintiff)   seeking   declaration   of   his   title
in   relation   to   the   properties   described   in   Schedule   ‘A’
attached to the plaint, being the land admeasuring 20
Guntas   in   Sy.   No.17/3;   western   portion   of   32  ½
Guntas in Sy.No.29/1; and 11 Guntas in Sy. No.34/3,
all   situated   at   Karagund   Village,   Javagal   Hobli,
Arasikere   Taluk,   Hassan   District,   Karnataka.     Out   of
the aforesaid land, 1 Gunta of land in Sy. No.17/3 and
a   portion   of   Sy.   No.29/1   were   mentioned   in   Schedule
‘B’   to   the   plaint   and   perpetual   injunction   was   sought
in that regard.  
5. The other particulars of the property described in
the   plaint   need   not   be   elaborated   for   the   reason   that
2

now the dispute in these proceedings is confined to the
part of the aforementioned land admeasuring 1 Gunta
in   Sy.   No.17/3   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   suit
land”).
6. According   to   the   appellant   (plaintiff),   the   entire
land   mentioned   above,   which   also   included   the   suit
land, fell to his share in the year 1980 after the death
of   his   father   by   a   partition   amongst   his   brothers.
However,   in   1983,   the   appellant   noticed   that   the   suit
land,   i.e.,   1   Gunta   in     Sy.   No.   17/3,   was   encroached
upon by the defendants. 
7. The   appellant,   therefore,   made   an   application   to
the   survey   department   to   get   the   land   measured.   On
measurement,   it   was   noticed   that   the   defendants   had
encroached   upon   the   portion   of   the   appellant’s   share
to the extent of 1 Gunta  of  Sy. No. 17/3. 
8. The   matter   was   accordingly   resolved   with   the
intervention   of   local   Panchayat   and   pursuant   thereto,
3

the   defendants   restored   the   possession   of   the
encroached portion of the suit land to the appellant.
9. Thereafter   the   appellant   filed   a   civil   suit   in   the
year   1992   against   the   respondents   for   declaration   of
his  ownership  right  over   the  entire  land  including  the
suit   land   and   for   grant   of   permanent   injunction   in
relation   to   the   suit   land.   In   the   alternative,   the
appellant   also   sought   the   relief   of   possession   of   the
suit land in case,  he is  held to be not in possession of
the suit land. 
10. The   respondents,   in   substance,   defended   their
possession   over   the   suit   land   and   alleged   that   they
have  perfected  their  ownership  title over  the suit  land
on   the   basis   of   their   adverse   possession   over   the   suit
land for a long period of time. 
11.   The  Trial   Court,  while   partly  decreeing   the  suit,
by   judgment   and   decree   dated   14.01.1999,   declared
the   appellant(plaintiff)   as   the   owner   of   larger   part   of
Schedule ‘A’ property but observed that the defendants
4

had   perfected   their   title   by   adverse   possession   over   1
Gunta   of   land   in   Sy.   No.17/3   and,   therefore,   the
prayer   seeking   permanent   injunction   against   the
defendants   as   regards   Schedule   ‘B’   property   was
rejected. 
12. The   appellant   (plaintiff)   felt   aggrieved   and   filed
first   appeal   before   the   first   Appellate   Court.   The
respondents   (defendants)   filed   their   cross   objections.
By order dated 10.09.2004 in R.A. No.11 of 1999, the
first   Appellate   Court,   in   substance,   upheld   all   the
findings   of   the   Trial   Court   but   modified   the   decree   to
some   extent   regarding   the   measurement   of   the   suit
land.
13. The   appellant   (plaintiff)   felt   aggrieved   and   filed
second   appeal   in   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka.   By
impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the
appeal   and   declared   the   appellant   (plaintiff)   to   be   the
owner   in   respect   of   the   land   admeasuring   19   Guntas
in   Sy.   No.   17/3   and   11   Guntas   in   Sy.   No.   34/3   but
5

dismissed his claim as being the owner of the suit land
admeasuring   1   Gunta   in   Sy.   No.   17/3   and   instead
declared   the   defendants   to   be   its   owner   by   virtue   of
their adverse possession over the suit land.
14. It   is   against   this   order   of   the   High   Court,     the
appellant(plaintiff)   has   felt   aggrieved   and   filed   the
present appeal by way of special leave in this Court    
15.   So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court
was   justified   in   holding   that   the   defendants
(respondents)  have  become the   owner  of  the  suit  land
to   the   extent   of   1   Gunta   in   Sy.   No.   17/3   by   virtue   of
their adverse possession over it.
16. Heard Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel for the
appellant.    Despite notice, no  one entered appearance
on behalf of the respondents. 
17. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are constrained to  allow this appeal and set aside the
6

impugned   judgment   to   the   extent   it   declares   the
defendants   (respondents)   as   being   the   owner   of   the
suit   land   admeasuring   1   Gunta   in   Sy.   No.   17/3   and,
in   consequence,   decreeing   the   plaintiff's   suit   in
relation to the suit land against the defendants. 
18.   What   is   “adverse   possession”   and   on   whom   the
burden of proof lies and what should be the approach
of   the   Courts   while   dealing   with   such   plea   have   been
the   subject­matter   of   a   large   number   of   cases   of   this
Court.
  19. In   T.   Anjanappa   &   Ors.   vs.   Somalingappa   &
Anr.,   (2006)   7   SCC   570,   this   Court   held   that   mere
possession,   howsoever   long   it   may   be,   does   not
necessarily   mean   that   it   is   adverse   to   the   true   owner
and the classical requirement of acquisition of title by
adverse   possession   is   that   such   possessions   are   in
denial of the true owners’ title.
20.   Relying   upon   the   aforesaid   decision,   this   Court
again in   Chatti Konati Rao & Ors.   vs.   Palle Venkata
7

Subba   Rao ,   (2010)   14   SCC   316   in   para   14   held   as
under: 
“ 14 . In view of the several authorities of this
Court, few whereof have been referred above,
what   can   safely   be   said   is   that   mere
possession however long does not necessarily
mean   that   it   is   adverse   to   the   true   owner.   It
means   hostile   possession   which   is   expressly
or   impliedly   in   denial   of   the   title   of   the   true
owner   and   in   order   to   constitute   adverse
possession   the   possession   must   be   adequate
in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as
to   show   that   it   is   adverse   to   the   true   owner.
The   possession   must   be   open   and   hostile
enough   so   that   it   is   known   by   the   parties
interested   in   the   property.   The   plaintiff   is
bound   to   prove   his   title   as   also   possession
within   twelve   years   and   once   the   plaintiff
proves   his   title,   the   burden   shifts   on   the
defendant   to   establish   that   he   has   perfected
his   title   by   adverse   possession.   Claim   by
adverse   possession   has   two   basic   elements
i.e. the possession of the defendant should be
adverse   to   the   plaintiff   and   the   defendant
must   continue   to   remain   in   possession   for   a
period of twelve years thereafter.”
  
21. Keeping   in   view   the   law   relating   to   the   adverse
possession quoted above, when we examine the case at
hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the Courts
below were not justified in holding that the defendants
have   perfected   their   title   over   the   suit   land   qua   the
8

plaintiff  by   virtue  of  their  adverse  possession   over  the
suit land. This we say for the following reasons.
22. First,   it   is   not   in   dispute   that   the
appellant(plaintiff)   was   the   owner   of   the   entire   land
including the suit land, i.e., encroached portion, which
was   alleged   to   be   in   possession   of   the
respondents(defendants).   In   other   words,   the
respondents(defendants)   have   admitted   the   ownership
of the appellant(plaintiff) over the entire land including
the   suit   land   by   setting   up   the   plea   of   adverse
possession   over   it;   Second,   the   burden   to   prove   the
adverse   possession   was   on   the
respondents(defendants) because it was they  who had
set up this plea; Third, the respondents(defendants), in
our view, failed to discharge this burden; Fourth, there
was   no   element   of   either   adversity   or/and   hostility
between two co­owners/brothers because in a dispute
of   this   nature   where   both   the   parties   are   related   to
each other, the possession of one is regarded to be the
9

possession   of   other   unless   the   facts   show   otherwise;
Fifth,   the   respondents(defendants)   failed   to   adduce
any   evidence   to   prove   that   they   were   asserting   their
right of ownership over the entire land or the suit land
or   its   part   openly   and   to   the   knowledge   of   the
appellant(plaintiff)   continuously   for   a   period   of   more
than 12 years; Sixth, it is a settled principle of law that
mere   continuous   possession   howsoever   long   it   may
have been   qua   its true owner is not enough to sustain
the   plea   of   adverse   possession   unless   it   is   further
proved   that   such   possession   was   open,   hostile,
exclusive   and   with   the   assertion   of   ownership   right
over   the   property   to   the   knowledge   of   its   true   owner.
Such   is   not   the   case   here.   Seventh,   this   was   a   case
where both the parties were not aware as to how much
land   was   in   exclusive   possession   of   each.   In   other
words, here is a case where both the parties to the suit
did   not   know   as   to   how   much   land   was   in   the
exclusive   possession   of   the   appellant   (plaintiff)   and
10

how   much   land   was   in   possession   of   the
respondents(defendants).   It   was   only   when   the
appellant(plaintiff) got the suit land measured through
the   revenue  department  in  the   year   1983,  he  came  to
know   that   some   portion   of   the   land,   which   had   fallen
to   his   share   was   in   possession   of   the
respondents(defendants). 
23. Thereafter   the   appellant(plaintiff)   filed   a   suit   in
the year 1992 against the respondents(defendants) for
declaration   and   injunction   and   in   the   alternative   also
claimed   possession   of   the   suit   land.   The   suit   was,
therefore, filed well within the period of 12 years from
the   date   of   knowledge,   i.e.,   in   the   year   1983.   During
this period also, there was no evidence adduced by the
defendants to prove that they ever asserted their right
of  ownership  over  the  specific  portion  of  the  suit  land
as   belonging   to   them   openly   and   with   assertion   of
hostility to the knowledge of appellant(plaintiff). 
11

24. In   our   view,   the   appellant(plaintiff)   having   come
to   know   that   the   respondents(defendants)   had
encroached   upon   his   land   in   the   year   1983   and   he
rightly   filed   the   suit   within   12   years   from   the   date   of
knowledge,   a   plea   of   adverse   possession   was   not
available   to   the   respondents(defendants)   against   the
appellant(plaintiff)   because   12   years   had   not   been
completed by then. 
25. In   this   view   of   the   matter,   the   question   of
respondents(defendants)   perfecting   their   title   by
adverse possession over the suit land did not arise. As
mentioned   above,   even   if   the   respondents(defendants)
claimed to be in possession over the suit land prior to
the year 1983, the same was of no consequence for the
simple   reason   that   such   possession   was   neither
exclusive   nor   hostile   and   nor   it   was   to   the   knowledge
of the parties for want of actual measurements.
26. It   is   for   all   these   reasons,   we   are   of   the
considered   view   that   the   Courts   below   were   not
12

justified in declaring the respondents(defendants) to be
the owner of the encroached portion of the suit land by
virtue of adverse possession. This finding, in our view,
being against the settled principle of law deserves to be
set aside.
27. In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   the   appeal
succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed.   The   impugned
judgment   is   set   aside.   As   a   consequence   thereof,   the
plaintiff’s   (appellant’s)   suit   is   decreed   in   its   entirety
against the defendants.  The defendants(respondents)
are   granted   three   months’   time   to   vacate   the
encroached   portion   (1   Gunta   in   Sy.   No.   17/3)   and
hand over its possession to the appellant/plaintiff .
          ………...................................J.
        [ ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ]
                                    
    … ...……..................................J.
                [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 26, 2019
13