Mere Possession Without Hostile Intent Does Not Constitute Adverse Possession: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India dismissed a civil appeal concerning whether a suit for possession, amended during the appellate stage, was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court held that the suit was governed by Article 65, which provides a 12-year limitation period for suits based on title, and ruled that the appellants failed to establish adverse possession.
The original plaintiff, Late Kalsammanavara Kalamma, filed a suit in 2011 (OS No. 67 of 2011) in the Civil Court at Hadagali for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding certain immovable properties. The trial court dismissed the suit in 2014, finding that although Kalamma was the absolute owner of the suit properties, she had not sought possession, and the defendants were in possession since 1981-82.
The plaintiff's legal heirs filed a first appeal in 2014 (RFA No. 80 of 2018) after Kalamma's death, amending the plaint to include a prayer for possession. The appellate court allowed the amendment and decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them the absolute owners and directing the defendants to hand over possession within 60 days.
The defendants filed a second appeal before the Karnataka High Court, which was dismissed in 2019. The High Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The defendants then approached the Supreme Court.
Applicability of Limitation Act: Whether the suit for possession, amended at the appellate stage, was barred by limitation under Article 58 (three years for declaratory reliefs) or Article 65 (12 years for possession based on title).
Adverse Possession: Whether the defendants had established adverse possession to defeat the plaintiffs’ claim based on title.
Doctrine of Relation Back: Whether the amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for possession at the appellate stage was permissible.
The Court emphasized that the appellate courts have the same powers as trial courts to allow amendments for effective adjudication. Citing Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002), it held that amendments to pleadings generally relate back to the date of the original suit unless specifically directed otherwise.
The Court observed: "Rules of procedure are intended to serve the ends of justice and should not become hurdles to adjudication of rights. Amendments to pleadings are permissible at any stage, provided they do not fundamentally alter the nature of the case."
The amendment to include recovery of possession was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and was not mala fide or prejudicial to the defendants.
2. Applicability of Limitation Act
The Court held that the relief for possession was governed by Article 65, not Article 58, as the plaintiffs’ title to the property was established by the concurrent findings of all courts.

The Court clarified: "When a suit is based on title for possession, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff."
The defendants’ argument under Article 58 was rejected, as it applies to suits for declaratory reliefs, not possession claims.

The Court observed that the defendants neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession, which is a necessary defense to defeat a title-based suit. It held:

"Mere possession since 1981-82 does not constitute adverse possession unless the defendants demonstrate hostile intent and overt acts adverse to the plaintiffs’ title."
Relying on precedents, including Indira v. Arumugam (1998) and Government of Kerala v. Joseph (2023), the Court reiterated that the burden to establish adverse possession lies on the party claiming it.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the first appellate court and the High Court. It directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs, observing:

"In a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited unless the defendant establishes adverse possession. In the absence of such a plea or proof, the plaintiffs’ title remains unimpeachable."
This judgment reaffirms that Article 65 of the Limitation Act governs suits for possession based on title, providing a 12-year limitation period. It underscores that adverse possession must be explicitly pleaded and proved to bar a claim based on title. Additionally, the decision emphasizes the flexibility of courts in allowing amendments to pleadings at the appellate stage to serve the ends of justice.

Date of Decision: December 20, 2024