18 March 2024 Wills & Estates >> Inheritance   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India settled a long-standing property dispute. The case involved an unnamed appellant who claimed ownership of a property in Chennai through adverse possession. The opposing parties, referred to as respondents, claimed the property based on a registered settlement deed from the original owner.

The Appellant argued he had been in possession of the property for over 45 years, fulfilling the criteria for adverse possession. However, the Court disagreed.

Key Points of Dispute:

• The original owner passed away in 1947 without a will.
• The Appellant claimed possession since 1950, while the respondents purchased the property from the inheritors in 2001.
• A crucial element missing from the Appellant's claim was establishing continuous and hostile possession with the knowledge of the rightful owner.

Court's Reasoning:

The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeals, citing his failure to prove essential elements of adverse possession. The Court highlighted the lack of a proper foundation for the claim in the initial lawsuit and the absence of evidence showcasing possession exceeding 12 years with the original owner's knowledge. Additionally, inconsistencies in the appellant's own statements regarding the possession period further weakened his case.

Conclusion:

Considering the Appellant's age and lengthy occupancy (though not legally established as adverse possession), the Court showed leniency. The Appellant and his adult family members were granted time to vacate the property until March 31st, 2025. This act of compassion was subject to them filing sworn undertakings to peacefully handover possession to the rightful owners.

The Takeaway:

This case underscores the importance of establishing a strong legal foundation for claiming adverse possession. Continuous and demonstrably hostile possession with the knowledge of the rightful owner is essential for such claims to succeed in court. The case also exemplifies the Court's ability to consider humanitarian aspects while upholding the law.