Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
Supreme Court of India · 7 August 2019 · 3 judges
A person who has perfected title by adverse possession can sue as plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to declare title, protect possession or recover it; Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala was overruled.
Facts
The civil appeal and the connected special leave petitions raised a common question of law: whether a person claiming title by adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and injunction, or for recovery of possession after dispossession, or whether adverse possession is only a shield for a defendant. In Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014), a two-Judge Bench had accepted, without contest, a Punjab and Haryana High Court view that a plaintiff cannot seek a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, and two later decisions had followed it. The three-Judge Bench heard counsel and two Amici Curiae on the question, decided it, and directed that the matters be placed before the appropriate Bench for decision on merits.
Questions before the Court
- Can a plaintiff who has perfected title by adverse possession sue under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title, injunction or recovery of possession?
- Is adverse possession available only as a shield to a defendant and not as a sword to a plaintiff?
- Did Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and the decisions following it lay down the law correctly?
What the Court held
- Once the 12 year period of adverse possession is complete, the owner's right to eject is lost and the possessor acquires the right, title and interest of the person against whom he has prescribed. This title can be used as a sword by a plaintiff as well as a shield by a defendant under Article 65.
- The word "title" in the opening part of Article 65 includes title acquired by adverse possession. Nothing in Article 65 or elsewhere in the Limitation Act, 1963 bars a plaintiff who has perfected title by adverse possession from suing to evict a person or to protect his possession.
- A person who has perfected title and is dispossessed by the former owner, or by another person who has not himself perfected title against him, can sue for restoration of possession. A person dispossessed by someone taking the law into his hands can file a possessory suit under Article 64 even before title ripens.
- Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala, and State of Uttarakhand v. Mandir Shri Lakshmi Siddh Maharaj and Dharampal v. Punjab Wakf Board which relied on it, do not lay down the law correctly and are overruled. The Sirthala observation rested on a concession and was not a decision on the point.
- Adverse possession requires possession that is continuous, open and hostile to the owner's title (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario), with animus possidendi. A trespasser's long possession is not by itself adverse possession, and adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title that is not pleaded.
Why it matters
The judgment settles that adverse possession can found a plaintiff's suit and not only a defence. It overrules Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and two decisions following it, reads "title" in Article 65 to include title perfected by adverse possession, and restates the requirements of adverse possession. It also suggests that the statute of limitation should make clear that no rights accrue by adverse possession over property dedicated to public use.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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”
“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 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.”
“The fact remains that the proposition was not disputed and no argument to the contrary had been raised, as such there was no decision on the aforesaid aspect only an observation was made as to proposition of law, which is palpably incorrect.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014 (with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8332-8333 of 2014)
- Decided
- 7 August 2019
- Bench
- Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court by Arun Mishra, J., signed by all three judges.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.