Long And Continuous Possession Cannot Be Termed As Adverse Possession So As To The Perfect Title

Facts

1. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property purchased from the Managing Officer, Department of Rehabilitation, Government of India in a public auction held on 21st March 1964. The Certificate of sale was issued on 4th January, 1963. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of property on 17 February, 1979. Plaintiff in the suit for possession alleges that the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the property and refused to vacate, thereon.
2. The defendants in their written statement denied the ownership of the Plaintiff and stated that they were residing there for the past two centuries and the property was in the possession of their grandfather, father and now they are in the possession of the same and totally denied the right of Plaintiff and refused to the title and rights of the same vested with the Managing officers and further states that the Managing officers have no authority and jurisdiction to auction the same property.

Issues

1. Whether the suit valued for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction?
2. Whether suit is time barred?
3. Whether the plaintiff owns the property?
4. Whether the defendants became owners by adverse possession?
5. Whether the defendants are in an unauthorized occupation of the property?
6. Relief

Held
Trail court
The learned Trail Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the property as he proved that the sale certificate was issued in his favor and it shows that the property has been sold in auction to him by the managing officers but the same is time barred. The court in the above scenario directed the plaintiff to make a good deficiency of court fee of 2000/- within one month for finding the suit value for the purpose of court and jurisdiction.

First Appellant court
The court in the finding recognized the ownership of the plaintiff and stated that the suit is not time barred as the suit is filed before the completion of 12 years on the observation that time limit starting from the date of purchase is not sustainable. The right of ownership by respondent over the property was challenged before the completion of the 12 years. Hence, the suit was not time barred and the defendants are in the unauthorized occupation of the property.

High court
The High Court decided the ownership of the property in favor of the plaintiff and held that suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred as the defendants were in the possession of the property from 1964 and 12 years from 1964 ends in 1976 and the suit was filed in 1979. The court further held that long possession does not ripe into possession title unless possessor has intention to possess the land adverse to the title of the true owner. Mere long possession is not necessary for the adverse possession; the assertion of the time must be clear and unequivocal.

Supreme Court
The Court explained that long and continued possession cannot be termed as adverse possession so as to the perfect title. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court that the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession are not legally sustainable and allowed the appeal stating that the defendants have not admitted the investing of property either to the plaintiff or to the Managing officers and as for plea of continuous possession, the possession was not hostile to the true owner.