In Brief
The appellant-widow (through legal representatives) claimed she had purchased a revenue site in Bangalore in 1976 from the respondent's deceased brother and had perfected title through adverse possession. The respondent (original plaintiff) asserted he was the absolute owner and sought possession. The trial court had found adverse possession established, but the High Court reversed, finding the alleged sale documents contained grave alterations and the adverse possession plea was improperly pleaded and proved. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that title and adverse possession cannot be claimed simultaneously from the same date. Once a title-based claim fails, an alternative adverse possession plea cannot commence from the very date title was allegedly acquired. Adverse possession requires specific pleading and proof of when possession became hostile, open, continuous and peaceful.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.