Case Title: Dhondubai vs Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725 | CA 5459-5460 OF 2023
Summary
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the adverse possession principle in a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title. The adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact, requiring evidence such as the date, nature, duration, and condition of the possession. The Court emphasized that a person who pleads adverse possession has no equities in their favor, as they are attempting to infringe upon the rights of the rightful owner. Article 65 of the Limitation Act establishes the starting point of limitation in securing an adverse possession order against the defendant. The Court also emphasized the significance of a statute of limitations when initiating a recovery action for property in adverse possession. The implementation of periods of limitation ensures actions are initiated within a specified timeframe, guaranteeing the accessibility of documentary and oral evidence and implementing the maxim “Maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt.”
About the case
In a recent decision regarding a petition for declaration of title, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several critical elements pertaining to the adverse possession principle. The Court reaffirmed that the adverse possession plea is a combination of law and fact. (10 SCC 779, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, 2004). The individual asserting adverse possession is required to provide the following evidence: (a) the date of his possession, (b) the nature of his possession, (c) whether the other party was aware of the factum of possession, (d) the duration of his possession, and (e) the condition of his possession in terms of being open and undisturbed.
A person who pleads adverse possession has no equities in their favor, the Court further stated. This, the court explained, is due to the fact that the individual desiring such possession is attempting to infringe upon the rights of the rightful owner. In securing an adverse possession order against the defendant, Article 65 of the Limitation Act establishes the starting point of limitation rather than the date the plaintiff acquires the right of ownership (Sark Singh v. Banto, [page number]). In addition, the animus possidendi to retain ownership in exclusion of the actual proprietor and the physical reality of exclusive possession are the most crucial elements that must be considered in adverse possession cases.
The right to access the Court, however, expires after a specified period of time, and the Court emphasized that this principle is contingent on limitation. In addition, the Court emphasized the significance of a statute of limitations when initiating a recovery action for property in adverse possession. 16 SCC 517 (Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009). “In general, contemporary statutes of limitation not only terminate the right to file a lawsuit seeking the restoration of property that has been in the wrongdoer’s adverse possession for a designated period of time, but also confer title on the possessor.” The purpose of these statutes is not to penalize individuals who fail to assert their rights, but rather to safeguard individuals who have possessed property for the designated period of time in accordance with a claim of right or color of title.
The Court also cited Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn. (1971) 2 SCC 860 in support of this. The Court deliberated at length in that document on the purpose of the Limitation Act. “The implementation of periods of limitation is essential to ensure that actions are initiated within a specified timeframe. This serves two purposes: first, to guarantee the accessibility of documentary and oral evidence that the defendant may use to refute the claim against him; and second, to implement the principle that the law does not assist an inactive person who laments over his rights by permitting them to remain dormant when challenged or disputed, without resorting to litigation in a court of law.”
The maxim “Maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt” articulates the guiding principle behind this regulation: “The laws benefit those who are vigilant and not those who are sleepy.” Although, among other things, determining whether the present petition for a declaration of title was time-barred, the Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol rendered these remarks. Given these circumstances, the Court granted the appeal but determined that the lawsuit is not maintainable due to the statute of limitations.
