Limitation Act: Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and Others [(2019) SC]

Introduction

This case delves into the nuanced principles of adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Supreme Court addressed whether a person claiming adverse possession can initiate a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, fundamentally altering how adverse possession is perceived in Indian jurisprudence.

Facts

1. Background:

• The plaintiff occupied a property, claiming title through adverse possession.
• Seeking legal recognition of title, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership and an injunction to protect possession from interference by the defendant municipality.

2. High Court Ruling:

• The High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s plea, ruling that adverse possession could only be used as a defense by a defendant, not as a cause of action by a plaintiff.

3. Appeal to Supreme Court:

• The plaintiff challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing for the right to assert adverse possession proactively.

Issues

1. Can adverse possession be used by a plaintiff to claim title under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
2. Does the extinguishment of the true owner’s title allow a person in adverse possession to seek protection from dispossession?
3. What evidentiary standard is required to prove adverse possession?
4. Is the law of adverse possession in its current form equitable, particularly concerning public property?

Judgment

1. Adverse Possession as a Sword:

• The Court held that adverse possession can be used as a cause of action, allowing a plaintiff to seek declaration of title and protection of possession.
• It overruled prior judgments that restricted adverse possession to a defensive plea.

2. Conditions for Adverse Possession:

• The person claiming adverse possession must demonstrate clear, unequivocal, and hostile possession that denies the title of the true owner.

3. Protection from Dispossession:

• Once title by adverse possession is perfected, the claimant cannot be dispossessed by the previous owner.

4. Harsh Consequences of Adverse Possession:

• The Court acknowledged that the doctrine can lead to unjust outcomes, particularly concerning public or charitable properties, and suggested legislative reforms to exempt such properties from adverse possession claims.

Reasoning

1. Legal Foundation:

• The Court interpreted Article 65 of the Limitation Act to permit proactive suits based on adverse possession, expanding its scope.

2. Equity and Practicality:

• The ruling emphasized the importance of equity in recognizing long-term possession as a basis for title, discouraging dormant owners from asserting stale claims.

3. Evidentiary Burden:

• The claimant must establish possession that is open, notorious, and adverse to the true owner for the statutory period.

Significance

1. Transforming Adverse Possession:

• This decision empowered claimants to assert adverse possession as a direct cause of action, reshaping its application in property law.

2. Balancing Rights:

• By recognizing adverse possession, the Court balanced the rights of possessors and true owners while encouraging timely enforcement of ownership claims.

3. Call for Reform:

• The judgment urged legislative reforms to protect public properties from adverse possession, ensuring the doctrine’s equitable application.