Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed the question whether a person claiming title by adverse possession can maintain a suit for declaration of title and for protection or restoration of possession. The court traced the historical origins of adverse possession from the Code of Hammurabi to English common law. It noted that in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014) 1 SCC 669, a two-judge bench had observed that adverse possession can only be used as a shield by a defendant, not as a sword by a plaintiff. However, that decision did not consider the earlier three-judge bench ruling in Sarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar AIR 1966 SC 1603, where a suit for recovery of possession based on adverse possession was held maintainable. The court held that a plaintiff who has perfected title by adverse possession can sue for declaration of title and for injunction or recovery of possession. The earlier view was overruled. The court emphasized that the concept of adverse possession serves societal utility by encouraging land use and curing title defects. The judgment clarifies that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not bar such suits.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Maintainability of Suit - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court considered whether a plaintiff can sue for declaration of title based on adverse possession. Held that such a suit is maintainable and adverse possession can be used as a sword, not merely as a shield. The earlier view in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014) 1 SCC 669 was overruled as it did not consider the three-judge bench decision in Sarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar AIR 1966 SC 1603. (Paras 1-7) B) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Title by Prescription - Section 28 read with Article 144 of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - The court relied on Sarangadeva Periya Matam where a plaintiff who acquired title by adverse possession was held entitled to recover possession. The principle applies under Article 65 of the 1963 Act as well. (Paras 6-7) C) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Shield and Sword - Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The court clarified that the plea of adverse possession is not limited to being a defense; a plaintiff can also base a claim on it. The historical development of adverse possession supports this view. (Paras 1-2, 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person claiming title by adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction or restoration of possession, and whether adverse possession can be used as a sword by a plaintiff or only as a shield by a defendant.
Final Decision
The court held that a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable. The view in Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014) 1 SCC 669 that adverse possession can only be used as a shield is overruled. The plaintiff can use adverse possession as a sword to seek declaration of title and protection or restoration of possession.
Law Points
- Adverse possession can be used as a sword by a plaintiff
- Suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963 does not bar such suit
- Title by adverse possession can be protected or recovered through suit
