2007 (4) TMI 738 - SC - Indian Laws

Claimed title on the basis of Adverse Possession - two different sale deeds - appellants herein purchased 2 acre 15 guntas and 3 acre guntas of land respectively, out of the said plot - Despite the fact that Nanjapa purchased a portion of the said plot, the appellants allegedly took over possession of the entire 5 acre 23 guntas of land after the aforementioned purchases - However, when allegedly their possession was sought to be disturbed by the respondent in the year 1988 - HELD THAT - It is to be borne in mind that the respondent had already purchased 1 acre 21 guntas out of the 5 acres 25 guntas under a duly registered deed dated 1.9.1933. Appellant bought the entire chunk of 5 acres 23 guntas subsequent to the respondent's transaction. The validity of such sale is not the question in the instant case but the transaction relating to 1 acre 23 Guntas remains an important surrounding circumstance to assess the nature of appellant's possession. The question is whether it is a case of mistaken possession ignoramus of the previous sale or adverse possession having the mental element in the requisite degree to dispossess. Also much depends on the answer to the query regarding the starting point of adverse possession when can the possession be considered to have become adverse? In the facts and circumstances of this case, the possession of appellant was effected through the sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936. Therefore, the alleged fact of adverse possession bears a pronounced backdrop of 1933 sale deed passing 1 acre 21 Guntas to the respondent. . As has already been mentioned, adverse possession is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses his right to reclaim the property out of continuous and willful neglect but also on account of possessor's positive intent to dispossess. Therefore it is important to take into account before stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the paper-owner of the property. This test forms the basis of decision in the instant case. The argument for a more intrusive inquiry for adverse possession must not be taken to be against the law of limitations. Limitation statutes as statutes of repose have utility and convenience as their purpose. Nevertheless, there has been change on this front as well which have been noticed by us hereto before. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim of title by adverse possession.
2. Requirements and legal principles of adverse possession.
3. The impact of human rights on property law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim of Title by Adverse Possession:
The appellants claimed title to the land based on adverse possession, asserting they had been in "open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession" for over fifty years. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, stating they had acquired title by adverse possession. However, the High Court reversed this decision, noting the absence of essential elements of adverse possession in the pleadings and evidence, specifically the recognition of the title of the person against whom adverse possession is claimed and the enjoyment of the property adverse to the title holder's interest.

2. Requirements and Legal Principles of Adverse Possession:
Adverse possession is based on the theory that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor due to acquiescence to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. Essential qualities include being open, continuous, and hostile. The law of adverse possession depends on statutes of limitation, which operate to vest the possessor with title after a specified period. The intention to dispossess is crucial, requiring a two-pronged inquiry: the application of limitation provisions and the specific positive intention to dispossess. The case highlighted that mere possession, even if long-term, is insufficient without the requisite intention to dispossess and the knowledge of the true owner.

3. The Impact of Human Rights on Property Law:
The right to property is considered a human right, recognized under various international declarations. The European Court of Human Rights has taken an unkind view toward statutes of limitation overriding property rights, emphasizing the need for a fair balance between public interest and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. In cases like JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom, the court found that the deprivation of property without compensation was disproportionate, highlighting the evolving jurisprudence that adverse possession claims must be considered in the context of human rights.

The Present Case:
The respondent had purchased a portion of the land in 1933, and the appellants subsequently bought the entire plot. The court needed to determine whether the appellants' possession was a case of mistaken possession or adverse possession with the requisite mental element to dispossess. The court concluded that the appellants' possession lacked the necessary intention to dispossess and was more indicative of an intention to possess. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that adverse possession requires a more intrusive inquiry and must be consistent with the evolving human rights jurisprudence. The court awarded costs to the respondent, assessing counsel's fee at Rs. 25,000/-.

Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the stringent requirements for claiming adverse possession, the importance of the intention to dispossess, and the influence of human rights on property law. The decision reflects a careful consideration of both legal principles and the broader context of property rights as human rights.