Permissive Possession Is Not Adverse Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Ownership Claim Over Agricultural Land

“Plaintiff never pleaded when possession became hostile—Mere silence for decades does not defeat title”: Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a detailed and precedent-reinforcing ruling concerning the doctrine of adverse possession, making it clear that "mere long possession, without hostile intent and denial of ownership, does not create title."

The High Court held that the first appellate court had erred in law by declaring the plaintiff as the owner by adverse possession, even though the plaintiff never pleaded the essential elements of hostility, denial of title, or the date from which his possession allegedly turned adverse.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal restored the judgment of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Gurgaon, dated 05.08.1989, which had rightly rejected the ownership claim while recognizing possession—without converting it into title.

“Hostile Possession Must Begin With a Denial of Owner’s Title — Not A Mere Rejected Mutation Entry”: High Court Reiterates Legal Threshold for Adverse Possession

Court Rejects Claim Based on Misunderstanding of Mortgage Entries, Emphasizes: “Possession must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario to mature into title”

The plaintiff, through legal representatives, had sought declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be the owner-in-possession of over 11 kanals of agricultural land in Dundaheri, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. His suit was based on the assertion that he had been in peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for more than 35 years, and that such possession had matured into ownership by adverse possession.

However, the plaintiff’s possession was originally recorded in revenue records as that of a mortgagee. Though a mutation entry for an oral mortgage was rejected by revenue authorities in 1961, there was no subsequent change in the nature of possession to suggest that it had become hostile to the true owners.

The trial court had partly decreed the suit, holding that while the plaintiff was in possession, he could not be declared owner by adverse possession. The first appellate court overturned that finding, declaring the plaintiff as the full owner, treating the rejected mortgage as evidence of hostile possession.

The High Court categorically rejected this view. Referring to the appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court held:

“Permissive possession would not turn into adverse possession merely on the basis of an act of revenue officials, whereby the mutation entered regarding oral mortgage was rejected.”

“Adverse Possession Begins Where Legal Ownership Is Denied”: Court Faults Absence of Pleading, No Specific Date or Hostile Assertion Found

Justice Aggarwal emphasized that the doctrine of adverse possession is not based on the number of years alone, but rather on when and how the person in possession declares hostility to the real owner’s title.

He observed: “The plaintiff has never pleaded that the defendants were ever owners of the suit property… In his testimony, the plaintiff consistently claims ancestral ownership… He never asserted that his possession is hostile to the title of the true owners.”

The Court relied heavily on established precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madhav Krishna v. Chandra Bhaga, (1997) 2 SCC 203, where it was held:

“Unless the title is disclaimed and adverse possession with hostile title to that of the owner is pleaded and proved, the plea of adverse possession cannot be held proved.”

Referring to the landmark principle in Karnataka Board Wakf v. Government of India, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 702, the High Court reiterated:

“The party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario’—i.e., peaceful, open, and continuous—and that it was to the knowledge of the true owner and in denial of their title.”

"Ancestral Ownership Claim Contradicts Adverse Possession": High Court Highlights Internal Contradictions in Plaintiff’s Case

The Court found that the plaintiff, rather than disclaiming the defendants’ title, had always claimed ownership on ancestral grounds, completely ignoring the requirement of asserting a hostile title.

Quoting from the record, the Court noted: “The plaintiff deposed that the suit land is ancestral property… He has nowhere recognized the defendants as owners… nor did he assert that his possession is hostile.”

The Court thus concluded that:

“Mere uninterrupted, peaceful possession, however long it may be, would not clothe the plaintiff with ownership of the suit land.”

This conclusion demolished the foundation of the appellate court’s reasoning and restored the factual and legal appreciation made by the trial court.

“No Question of Law Needed, But Legal Misapplication Permits Interference”: High Court Applies Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918

While Section 100 of CPC mandates that second appeals must raise a substantial question of law, the High Court clarified that in Punjab, second appeals are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Citing Pankajakshi v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and Kirodi v. Ram Parkash, (2019) 11 SCC 317, the Court noted:

“Second appeals under Section 41 can be entertained where findings of fact are based on misreading or misapplication of settled legal principles.”

In the present case, the first appellate court had incorrectly applied the law of adverse possession by ignoring the plaintiff's failure to plead denial of title, absence of a specific date from which hostility began, and the inconsistent stand of ancestral ownership.

No Ownership Without Hostility—Possession Must Deny the True Owner’s Rights to Become Adverse

Allowing the appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the decree of the First Appellate Court dated 05.05.1990, and restored the judgment of the Sub Judge, Gurgaon dated 05.08.1989, which had denied the declaration of ownership by adverse possession.

The Court decisively concluded: “Considering the fact that the plaintiff has never pleaded that the defendants were ever owners of the suit property and he is in possession over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court… are certainly wrong and erroneous.”

This ruling reiterates that adverse possession is a doctrine of strict legal application, not one that can be claimed based on ambiguity, silence, or administrative oversights in revenue records.

Date of Decision: 20 August 2025