2019 INSC 0654
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6111 OF 2009
KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D)
THROUGH LRS.  …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
O.V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. & ORS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12267  OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2760 OF 2011)
NAGAR COUNCIL SIRHIND …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHAGAT RAM & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  10332  OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.10343 OF 2016)
M.E. MUNIRAJEGOWDA & ORS.   …APPELLANT(S) 
VERSUS
SRI UTHANALLAPPA @ UTHANALLIGA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The   instant   appeals   involve   a   preliminary   issue   as   to   whether
plaintiff   can   take   the   plea   of   adverse   possession   in   view   of   the
interpretation   of   Article   65   of   the   Limitation   Act,   1963.     A   Three­Judge

2
Bench   of   this   Court   in   Ravinder   Kaur   Grewal   &   Ors.   v.   Manjit   Kaur   &
Ors.   (Civil   Appeal   No.7764   of   2014)   has   decided   the   similar   issue   on
7 th
 August, 2019, by holding as under:
“56. Possession is the root of title and is right like the property.
As   ownership   is   also   of   different   kinds   of   viz.   sole   ownership,
contingent   ownership,   corporeal   ownership,   and   legal   equitable
ownership.     Limited   ownership   or   limited   right   to   property   may
be   enjoyed   by   a   holder.     What   can   be   prescribable   against   is
limited to the rights of the holder.  Possession confers enforceable
right   under   Section   6   of   the   Specific   Relief   Act.     It   has   to   be
looked   into   what   kind   of   possession   is   enjoyed   viz.   de   facto   i.e.,
actual,   ‘de   jure   possession’,   constructive   possession,   concurrent
possession   over   a   small   portion   of   the   property.     In   case   the
owner is in symbolic possession, there is no dispossession, there
can   be   formal,   exclusive   or   joint   possession.     The   joint
possessor/co­owner   possession   is   not   presumed   to   be   adverse.
Personal law also plays a role to construe nature of possession.
57. The   adverse   possession   requires   all   the   three   classic
requirements   to   co­exist   at   the   same   time,   namely,   nec­vi   i.e.
adequate   in   continuity,   nec­clam   i.e. ,   adequate   in   publicity   and
nec­precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his
knowledge.     Visible,   notorious   and   peaceful   so   that   if   the   owner
does   not   take   care   to   know   notorious   facts,   knowledge   is
attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would
have  known  it.     Adverse  possession  cannot be  decreed  on a  title
which is not pleaded.    Animus possidendi   under hostile colour of
title   is   required.     Trespasser’s   long   possession   is   not   synonym
with adverse possession.  Trespasser’s possession is construed to
be   on   behalf   of   the   owner,   the   casual   user   does   not   constitute
adverse   possession.     The   owner   can   take   possession   from   a
trespasser   at   any   point   in   time.     Possessor   looks   after   the
property,   protects   it   and   in   case   of   agricultural   property   by   and
the   large   concept   is   that   actual   tiller   should   own   the   land   who
works  by dint  of  his hard  labour  and makes the land  cultivable.
The   legislature   in   various   States   confers   rights   based   on
possession.
58. Adverse possession is heritable and there can be tacking of
adverse   possession   by   two   or   more   persons   as   the   right   is
transmissible   one.     In   our   opinion,   it   confers   a   perfected   right
which cannot be defeated on reentry except as provided in Article
65   itself.     Tacking   is   based   on   the   fulfillment   of   certain
conditions,   tacking   maybe   by   possession   by   the   purchaser,
legatee   or   assignee,   etc.   so   as   to   constitute   continuity   of

3
possession,   that   person   must   be   claiming   through   whom   it   is
sought   to   be   tacked,   and   would   depend   on   the   identity   of   the
same   property   under   the   same   right.     Two   distinct   trespassers
cannot   tack   their   possession   to   constitute   conferral   of   right   by
adverse possession for the prescribed period.  
59. We   hold   that   a   person   in   possession   cannot   be   ousted   by
another   person   except   by   due   procedure   of   law   and   once   12
years'  period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right  to
eject   him   is   lost   and   the   possessory   owner   acquires   right,   title
and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case
may   be   against   whom   he   has   prescribed.   In   our   opinion,
consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it
can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the
defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any person who
has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for
restoration   of   possession   in   case   of   dispossession.   In   case   of
dispossession   by   another   person   by   taking   law   in   his   hand   a
possessory suit  can be  maintained  under  Article  64,  even  before
the ripening of title by way of adverse possession.   By perfection
of title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a person cannot be
remediless.  In case he has been dispossessed by the owner after
having lost the right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by
the   plaintiff   by   taking   the   plea   of   adverse   possession.   Similarly,
any   other   person   who   might   have   dispossessed   the   plaintiff
having   perfected   title   by   way   of   adverse   possession   can   also   be
evicted   until   and   unless   such   other   person   has   perfected   title
against   such   a   plaintiff   by   adverse   possession.   Similarly,   under
other  Articles  also  in  case  of  infringement  of   any  of   his  rights,  a
plaintiff   who   has   perfected   the   title   by   adverse   possession,   can
sue and maintain a suit.
60. When   we   consider   the   law   of   adverse   possession   as   has
developed   vis­à­vis   to   property   dedicated   to   public   use,   courts
have been loath to confer the right by adverse possession.   There
are   instances   when   such     properties   are   encroached   upon   and
then   a   plea   of   adverse   possession   is   raised.     In   Such   cases,   on
the   land   reserved   for   public   utility,   it   is   desirable   that   rights
should   not   accrue.     The   law   of   adverse   possession   may   cause
harsh consequences, hence, we are constrained to observe that it
would be advisable that concerning such  properties dedicated  to
public cause, it is made clear in the statute of limitation that no
rights can accrue by adverse possession.  
61. Resultantly, we hold that decisions of   Gurudwara Sahab v.
Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala  (supra) and decision relying on it
in   State   of   Uttarakhand   v.   Mandir   Shri   Lakshmi   Siddh   Maharaj
(supra)   and   Dharampal (dead) through LRs v. Punjab Wakf Board
(supra)  cannot  be   said  to   be  laying down  the   law  correctly,   thus

4
they are hereby overruled. We hold that plea of acquisition of title
by  adverse  possession can be  taken by plaintiff under Article 65
of   the   Limitation   Act   and   there   is   no   bar   under   the   Limitation
Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any
rights of a plaintiff. 
62. Let the matters be placed for consideration on merits before
the appropriate Bench.”
2. The   preliminary   issue   involved   in   the   instant   appeals   is   wholly
covered by the above decision.   In view of the answer, let the matters be
placed for consideration on merits before the appropriate Bench.
……………………..J.
(Arun Mishra)
New Delhi; .…………………….J.
August 08, 2019. (Vineet Saran)