Title can be claimed through adverse possession; 70-year-old land dispute comes to an end in Supreme Court

A dispute which started before the Supreme Court came into existence, finally came to an end in the Supreme Court yesterday. After over seventy years of litigation which had its genesis in facts prior to the independence of the country, the Supreme Court today delivered its judgment in the matter..“By this judgment we hope to bring quietus to a dispute which has its genesis to facts prior to the independence of the country. The parties through their predecessors have been litigating for more than 70 years.”.Opening with these lines, the Supreme Court reiterated its position on the issue of adverse possession and held, yet again, that title can be claimed on account of adverse possession which can be used both as a sword (to claim title) as well as a shield (to defend against dispossession)..Not only does the genesis of the dispute go back to a period before independence, but it also has a long and convoluted history of various rounds of litigation..In 1942, a piece of land was purchased by a rich landlord, Krishnamurthy S Setlur (KS), through a general power of attorney which was vested in one HR Narayana Iyengar (HR). The land was, therefore, in the name of HR..After disputes arose between them in 1947, KS claimed that he was the true owner and HR was the benamidar. KS filed a suit in 1949 against HR seeking a declaration that the suit property belonged to him. This suit was dismissed on November 10, 1961. It was held that KS had failed to prove that HR had purchased the properties as benamidar of KS. His claim for ownership of the property was rejected. Appeal was filed by KS against this judgment which was dismissed on July 27, 1966 and the same attained finality..Meanwhile, according to KS, a settlement was entered into by him with his tenant AR on April 16, 1962 with regard to the tenancy rights in respect of the suit land. Accordingly, a registered sale cum release deed was jointly executed by KS and AR. In terms of the settlement, AR retained an area of 6 acres 25 guntas in Survey No. 85 and the balance land was released in favour of KS..An application for approval of the settlement was filed before the Tehsildar, Bangalore and the Tehsildar passed an order accepting the application and the surrender of tenancy rights by AR in favour of KS. He permitted KS to take possession of the suit property from AR..According to KS, he had been in possession of the suit property and he also applied to the revenue authorities for entering his name in the revenue record and in February, 1963 his name was entered in the revenue record..According to KS, despite the settlement, AR again tried to interfere with the possession of KS. AR illegally sold some portion of the land which he had surrendered, to some other persons compelling KS to file a suit in 1963 against AR. In this suit HR or his legal heirs were not made parties. This suit was dismissed on July 20, 1967 by the trial court..Appeal filed by KS was dismissed by the first appellate court on July 31, 1970. The Regular Second Appeal was, however, allowed by a judgment of 1981 and KS was held to be the owner in possession of the property. Therefore, a decree for injunction was granted against AR and the other defendants..Some portion of the land was thereafter leased out by KS to a builder for quarrying purposes, which the legal heirs of HR objected to and thus arose the present case with KS seeking a permanent injunction against HR and his descendants in 1981..At first, KS claimed ownership of the land and argued that HR was benamidar and in the alternative, title was also claimed on the ground of adverse possession against HR’s claim. Subsequently, only the claim of adverse possession was made..The trial court decreed in favour of KS finding him in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land for 12 years leading to him perfecting his title through possession. HR’s descendants moved the Karnataka High Court against the order of the trial court. The same was allowed resulting in the current appeal before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court while saying that ” there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession.”.After perusing the facts of the case and the revenue records to show peaceful and uninterrupted possession of KS, the Court concluded that the High Court erred and failed to consider that HR and his descendants had not proven how they got the possession of the land. KS may have been dispossessed by HR’s descendants during the pendency of the case but that ought not to have a bearing on this case..The Court also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the three-Judge Bench recently in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors wherein the rights arising out of adverse possession were discussed by the Court which recognized the right to sue for title in such cases..The Court thus ruled in favour of KS who had acquired and perfected his title over suit property by way of adverse possession against the defendant..[Read Judgment]