T. ANJANAPPA AND ORS. versus SOMALINGAPPA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 22-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
T. ANJANAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
SOMALINGAPPA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 22, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOK.ESH WAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Adverse Possession-meaning of and requirements of acquisition of 
title by adverse possession-Suit claiming title to the property on the basis 
C of Municipal records-Possession of the property by plaintiff three years 
prior to filing of the suit-Allegation against defendants of encroachments 
on a portion of the property-Defendants stating that the land belonged to 
Government and they were in adverse possession of the same-Held: 
Defendants' plea of being in adverse possession of the property is not 
established-If the occupant is not sure of the actual ownership of the 
D property, the question of his being in hostile possession and denying the title 
of the true owner does not arise-A possession, in order to be adverse, should 
be a hostile possession in express or implied denial of the title of the true 
owner-Such possession must be peaceful, open and continuous-If possession 
can be referred to a lawful title, the same cannot be considered to be 
adverse-The burden to prove is on the person who bases his title on adverse 
E possession-Limitation Act, 1963-Section 65-Evidence-Burden of proof 
Words and Phrases: " 
Adverse possession "-Meaning of 
F 
Appellants filed a suit claiming title to the property in question by virtue 
of entries in the Municipal records. Appellants purchased the property from 
its owner two days after filing of the suit. The erstwhile owner had mortgaged 
the property in favour of the appellant. The allegation of the appellants was 
that the respondents had encroached upon a portion of the property putting a 
G hutment about 3 years prior to filing of the suit. Respondents denied the title 
of the appellants, contending that they were in possession of the premises for 
about 16 years·; that the land was a Government land; that they were paying 
tax to the municipality; that they were in adverse possession of the land; and 
that the area had been declared a slum area. Respondents also filed a counter 
suit. Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants and allowed that of the 
fl 
200 
-
T. ANJANAPPA v. SOMALINGAPPA 
201 
respondents. Appellate Court upheld the title of the appellants and granted A 
them relief of possession setting aside the judgment of trial court in both the 
suits; In second appeal, High Court held that the respondents had established 
their plea of adverse possession of a portion of the property, hence grant of 
decree for declaration of title and possession to that extent in favour of 
appellants was bad in law. Hence the present appeals. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l. High Court has erred in holding that even if the defendants 
claim adverse possession, they do not have to prove who is the true owner and 
even if they had believed that the Government was the true owner and not the 
plaintiffs, the same was inconsequential. The requirements of proving adverse C 
pnssession have not been established. If the defendants are not sure who is 
the true owner, the question of their being in hostile possession and the 
question of denying title of the true owner do not arise. Above being the 
position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable. Equally, the High 
Court has proceeded on the basis that the respondent in his suit had D 
established his plea of possession. The factual position does not appear to have 
been analysed by the High Court in the proper perspective. When the High 
Court was upsetting the findings recorded by the court below i.e., the first 
appellate Court, it would have been proper for the High Court to analyse the 
factual position in detail which has not been done. No reason has been indicated 
to show as to why it was differing from the factual findings recorded by it. E 
The first appellate Court had categorically found that the appellants in the 
present appeals had proved possession three years prior to filing of the suit. 
This finding has not been upset. Therefore, the High Court was not justified 
in setting aside the first appellate Court's order. (209-B-Fl 
2.1. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostHe possession F 
i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the 
true owner. For deciding whether the alleged acts of a person constituted 
adverse possession, the animus of the person doing those acts is the most 
crucial factor. Adverse posses

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