
Narasamma
& Ors. v A. Krishnappa (Dead) Through LRs.
CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2710 of 2010 decided on August 26, 2020.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/12852/12852_2009_36_1501_23654_Judgement_26-Aug-2020.pdf
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, Anirudha
Bose, JJ.
Issue:
Whether
simultaneously a plea can be taken contradictory pleas of title and adverse
possession in the same suit and from the same date?
Held:
The
Supreme Court held that the claim of title and the plea of adverse possession cannot
taken simultaneously. The court noted that the pleas on title and adverse
possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate
until the former is renounced. The court also held that in order to establish
adverse possession an inquiry is required to be made into the starting point of
such adverse possession and thus, when the recorded owner got dispossessed
would be crucial. It has to be specifically pleaded and proved that the party
was in adverse possession for 12 years and its only after that period that the
real owner will lose title.
Also, to constitute adverse
possession, the three classic requirements, which need to co-exist are nec vi, i.e, adequate in continuity, nec clam, i.e, adequate in publicity and
nec precario, i.e., adverse to a
competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. The possession has to be in
public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary
as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the right of the true owner
Well explained in very simple and precise manner