ANNAKILI versus A. VEDANA YAGAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ANNAKILI 
A 
v. 
A. VEDANA YAGAM AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
B 
"'T 
Adverse possession-Mere possession of land is not enough-
Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to 
the title of the true owner-For said purpose, not only animus c 
possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to 
exist at the commencement of possession-He must continue in said 
capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act-Mere long 
possession for a period of more than 12 years without anything more 
does not ripen into a title-Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65. 
D 
Respondents purchased certain property from the Corporation of 
Madras. The property was later designated as a slum area and 
transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, which after 
undertaking certain development activities thereon, allotted it to E 
Appellant Respondents filed writ petition before High Court seeking 
direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to denotify the property in 
question as a slum area which was allowed by a Single Judge. The said 
fmding of the Single Judge was not overturned by the Division Bench 
in writ appeal, which while upholding the title of the Respondents in F 
> 
>'' 
relation to the said property, held thatthe Single Judge was not correct 
in directing handing over of possession of the suit properties in favour 
of the Respondents, although the Appellant was in possession thereof. 
The Government of Tamil Nadu cancellCd the earlier notification G 
notifying the property in que8tion as slum area. Respondents, thereafter, 
flied civil suit seeking re£overy of possession of the property in question 
""' 
---4 
which was dismissed on the ground that the suit property had been in 
occupation of the Appellants for a long time and that they have acquired 
517 
H 
..... ~ 
: -· \, 
-~ 
,,. 
' 
, 
... 
. , 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A title by adverse possession. The suit was also held to be barred by 
limitation. High Court, however, allowed appeal and directed the 
App.ellant to deliver possession of the property to the Respondents. 
Appellant contended before this Court that the High Court 
B 
proc~eded on an erroneous basis that the title of the suit property was 
not in' dispute and that it also committed a serious er~or in opining that 
the Appellant had no animus to possess the suit property adverse to 
the interest of the Respondent. It was contended that the evidences on 
record showed that the Appellants had been in continu~us possession 
c form? re than 60 years and, thus, they had perfected their title by adverse 
possession. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The title of the land was with Corporation of Madras. 
D The Corporation had transferred the suit property in favour of Mr. 
Krishnadoss Lala. Despite the fact that the Corporation of Madras had 
divested itself of the said property, it erroneously transferred the same 
in favour of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 1.12.1973. Pursuent 
thereto, certain development activities were taken by the Board. At that 
E point of time, Shri Krishnadoss Lala submitted a representation to the 
Corporation of Madras stating that although the property belonged to 
him, the same was illegally transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum 
Clearance Board. The Corporation accepted the said mistake on its part 
and informed the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board thereabout. A 
-
, 
F request was made to the Boar~ to exclude the said property from the 
list of properties o-wned by the Slum Clearance Board. The predecessors 
and representatives of the respondent thereafter paid the development 
charges incurred by the Slum Clearance Board. A request was made 
· by the Board to deO'ofify the Slum area but the State did not take any 
G action thereupon. It was in the aforementioned factualscenario, the writ 
petition was filed. [P.~ras 16and17] [525-G-H; 526-A-C] 
1.2. AppeUant had been claiming title only on the basis of purported 
settlement made in their favour by the Tamil Nadu Shim Clearance 
H 
Board. It waS-not their case that even prior to 1.12.1972 when the area 
.., 
"" 
to
' 
~ 
~ 
~ - " 
ANNAKILI v. A. VEDANA Y AGAM 
519 
was declared as slum area, they have acquired title by adverse A 
possession. Therefore, the Corporation of Madras or Tamil Na du Slum 
Clearance Board did not have any title in the suit property. They could 
not have transferred any right, title and interest

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.