Mere Long Possession Not Evidence Of Adverse Possession; Element Of Hostility Has To Be Affirmatively Established: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from a dispute relating to the title and possession of agricultural land situated within the revenue estate of Muktsar, Punjab.

The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held, “The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court appear to have equated long and uninterrupted possession with adverse possession. Such an approach, with respect, overlooks the settled distinction between the two concepts. Long possession may furnish evidence of physical occupation, however it does not, by itself, establish that such possession was adverse in law. The doctrine of adverse possession does not reward longevity of occupation alone. It protects only such possession as is accompanied by a conscious and hostile assertion of ownership in denial of the rights of the true owner. Unless the element of hostility is affirmatively established, the plea must necessarily fail.”

The judgment in Government of Kerala and Another vs Joseph and Others (2023) was referenced.

Advocate Sunil Singh Parihar represented the Appellant while Advocate Saurabh Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The dispute revolved around a registered sale deed dated May 13, 1965 and an alleged prior dedication of the suit property in favour of Dera Bhai Mastan Singh for Dharam-Arth (religious and charitable purposes). The original plaintiffs instituted a Civil Suit before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Muktsar, seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land together with a consequential decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The suit was resisted by the defendants, represented by Dera Bhai Mastan Singh, who denied both the plaintiffs' title and possession.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit by relying upon the documentary evidence comprising the revenue records, particularly the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that possession had ever passed pursuant to the sale deed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred a Civil Appeal, which came to be dismissed. In the second appeal, the High Court set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Explaining the distinction between the proof of possession and proof of title, the Bench stated, “Revenue records, including Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris, are undoubtedly relevant pieces of evidence for determining the nature and continuity of possession. They neither create nor extinguish title, nor can they, by themselves, constitute conclusive evidence of ownership. The consistent view of this Court has been that entries in revenue records are primarily maintained for fiscal purposes and are admissible as evidence of possession, but they do not confer title to immovable property. The question of ownership must ultimately be determined on the basis of substantive evidence establishing the source of title.”

The Bench further stated that a valid dedication of immovable property to a religious or charitable institution undoubtedly does not, in every case, require a formal deed if the law otherwise recognises such dedication by unequivocal conduct. “Nevertheless, the burden of establishing such dedication squarely rests upon the party asserting it. The Court must be satisfied that the owner had manifested a clear and unequivocal intention to divest himself permanently of ownership and to vest the property in the religious institution. Mere long possession of a Mahant or an entry in the revenue records indicating cultivation for Dharam-Arth purposes cannot, without more, be treated as conclusive proof that ownership itself stood irrevocably transferred”, it added.

The Bench noted that the entire case of the appellants proceeded on the premise that Attar Singh entered into possession of the suit property as Mahant of Dera Bhai Mastan Singh for Dharam-Arth purposes and upon his demise, possession continued through the succeeding Mahants. The Bench was of the view that if this was the appellants' own case, the origin of possession was never asserted to be hostile to the recorded proprietors. The Bench noticed that, on the contrary, the appellants themselves sought to explain such possession as flowing from an earlier dedication of the property in favour of the Dera. “Possession founded upon such an assertion cannot, without more, simultaneously be characterised as hostile possession so as to attract the doctrine of adverse possession”, it added.

Reiterating that a transferor cannot convey a better title than what he himself possesses, the Bench mentioned that to the extent the vendors were not owners of the entire property, the sale deed could not operate to transfer a larger estate than that lawfully vested in them. The Bench thus rejected the objection raised by the appellants in that regard.

The Bench also clarified that the appellants could not derive any advantage merely by pointing out imperfections in the respondents’ title. The Bench mentioned that an entry describing possession as "gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth" is neither conclusive proof of a completed dedication nor conclusive proof of permissive possession. Holding that the appellants failed to establish either that the suit property had irrevocably vested in Dera Bhai Mastan Singh by a complete dedication or that title had subsequently been perfected by adverse possession in accordance with law, the Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, setting aside those findings.

Cause Title: Bhag Singh (D) Thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Thr. Lrs. And Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 983)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Sunil Singh Parihar, Ankit Dwivedi, Dhawesh Pahuja, AOR M/s Ap & J Chambers

Respondent: Advocates Saurabh Sharma, Karan Seth, Amaan Deewaan, Yogesh, AOR Shalu Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment