In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized a crucial aspect of property ownership: knowing the rightful owner. The case underscored that merely claiming adverse possession isn’t sufficient if the claimant fails to establish both the identity of the actual owner and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years, known to the original owner.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the necessity for plaintiffs to disclose material facts proving adverse possession.
“It is imperative for a party claiming adverse possession to ascertain the true owner of the property and demonstrate open, uninterrupted possession for over 12 years, known to the original owner. Such crucial details were absent in the plaintiff’s plea, rendering it unfounded,” stated Justice Abhay S. Oka.
The court reiterated the prerequisites for establishing adverse possession:
(a) The claimant must assert possession adverse to the true owner.
(b) The possession must be openly and continuously known to the true owner.
(c) The claimant must specify when possession commenced.
(d) The possession must remain open and undisturbed.
Highlighting the gravity of adverse possession claims, the court stressed the absence of equity in favor of claimants seeking to undermine the rightful owner’s rights through wrongful possession over 12 years.
The plaintiff in this case failed to prove the identity of the property’s actual owner and couldn’t demonstrate that their possession was known to the owner. Meanwhile, the defendant countered the claim, presenting evidence of property acquisition through legal means after the original owner’s demise.
Critical observations by the High Court further weakened the plaintiff’s stance:
1. Inability to prove ownership awareness of adverse possession by the true owner.
2. Lack of evidence regarding tax payments and property maintenance.
3. Non-payment of water and sewage taxes for extended periods.
Consequently, the High Court correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish the onset of adverse possession. The absence of a foundation for adverse possession in the initial plea further undermined the case.
The court deemed the plaintiff a trespasser, affirming the defendant’s valid title despite the absence of a probate certificate.
In summary, the ruling underscores the significance of establishing adverse possession with due diligence and evidence. Failure to meet these criteria can result in dismissal of ownership claims, affirming the rightful owner’s title over the property.
