Published on: 22 August 2023 at 15:21 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: State of Rajasthan V. Harphool Singh (2000)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the title by adverse possession for public property requires detailed consideration by the Hon’ble Courts as results in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third-party encroacher title where he had none.
It is held that possession is governed by Nec Vi, Nec Clam, Nec Precario — which means that the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor.
12. So far as the question of perfection of title by adverse possession and that too in respect of public property is concerned, the question requires to be considered more seriously and effectively for the reason that it ultimately involves destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and conferring upon a third-party encroacher title where he had none.
The decision in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, adverted to the ordinary classical requirement — that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario — that is the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It was also observed therein that whatever may be the animus or intention of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession, his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtains actual possession with the required animus.
In the decision reported in Secy. of State for India in Council v. Debendra Lal Khan strongly relied on for the respondents, the Court laid down further that it is sufficient that the possession be overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running, ought if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening and if the rights of the Crown have been openly usurped it cannot be heard to plead that the fact was not brought to its notice.
In Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant, it was observed that a claim of adverse possession being a hostile assertion involving expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner, the burden is always on the person who asserts such a claim to prove by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was hostile to the real owner and in deciding such claim, the courts must have regard to the animus of the person doing those acts.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra