P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY AND ORS. versus REVAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 24-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P.T. MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
REVAMMA AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 64 & 65 of the Schedule-Indian 
Limitation Act, 1908-Articles 142 & 143 of the Schedule-Purchase of suit 
property by plaintiffs by registered sale deeds without knowledge of earlier C 
purchase of the same by defendants-Suit for possession claiming title by 
adverse possession was decreed by trial court-High Court reversing the 
judgment of the trial court holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title 
by adverse possession-Correctness of-Held, on facts and evidence, positive 
intention to dispossess the suit property essential to claim adverse possession 
was not proved by plaintiffs and hence, suit for possession dismissed. 
D 
Appellant-plaintiffs purchased suit property by two registered sale deeds 
subsequent to the purchase of the same by respondents-defendants. A suit for 
possession filed by the appellants claiming title on the basis of adverse 
possession was decreed by the trial court. The High Court, in appeal, reversed 
the judgment of the trial court holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their E 
title by adverse possession. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the 
acknowledgment of the owner's title was not sine qua non for claiming title 
by adverse possession. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Adverse possession is based on the theory or presumption 
that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the 
acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in 
possession • It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie G 
in it being open, continuous and hostiles. (Para 5) (496-D, E) 
Downing v. Bird, (100) So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958); Arkansas Commemorative 
Commission v. City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 1085, 303 S.W.2d 569 (1957); 
491 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 5 S.C.R. 
A Monnot v. Murphy, (207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 (1913) and City of Rock 
Springs v. Sturm, 39 Wyo. 494, 273 P. 908, 97 A.L.R. 1 (1929), referred to. 
1.2. Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on 
strong limitation statutes by operation of which, the right to access the court 
expires through effluxion of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in 
B the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in 
favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for 
the land, developed it as against the owner of the property who has ignored 
the property. Modern statutes oflimitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut 
off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in 
the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the 
c possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who 
neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the 
possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of 
right or color of title. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by 
itself for the success of an adverse possession claim. 
D 
(Para 6) (496-F, G; 497-A, B) 
American Jurisprudence Vol. 3, referred to. 
Fairweather v. St. Marylebone Property Co., (1962) 2 WLR 1020; 
(1962) 2 All ER 299; Taylorv. Twinberries, (1930) 2KB17 and Chung Ping 
E Kwan & Ors. v. Lam Island Development Company Ltd. (Hong Kong), (1997) 
AC 38, referred to. 
1.3. To assess a claim of adverse possession, two-pronged enquiry is 
required. Firstly, application of limitation provision thereby jurisprudentially 
"Willful neglect" element on part of the owner established. Successful 
F application in this regard distances the title of the land from the paper-owner. 
G 
Secondly, specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse 
possessor effectively shifts the title already distanced from the paper owner, 
to the adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of adverse possessor 
as intent to dispossess is an express statement of urgency and intention in 
the upkeep of the property. [Para 9) (498-D, E, F) 
1.4 The aspect of positive intention is weakened by the two sale deeds. 
Intention is a mental element which is proved and disproved through positive 
acts. Existence of some events can go a long way to weaken the presumption 
of intention to dispossess which might have painstakingly grown out of long

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