The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) is a turning point in the law of adverse possession in India. The three-judge Bench made clear that once a person has perfected title by adverse possession, that person does not remain merely a defensive litigant: she may bring a suit for declaration of title and injunction or for restoration of possession where dispossessed — within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act.
That time limit is governed by Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963: a possession suit based on title is ordinarily subject to a 12-year limitation running from the date when the defendant’s possession becomes hostile to the plaintiff. Crucially, the Court interpreted the word “title” in Article 65 to include title perfected by adverse possession; in other words, perfected prescriptive rights can be asserted affirmatively — not only as a shield.
The ruling also settles a long-running judicial conflict about whether adverse possession is only a defensive plea. The Bench reiterated the classic tripartite test (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario) for proving adverse possession, stressed the need for clear and consistent factual findings, and recognised transmissibility/tacking of possession where appropriate. These doctrinal clarifications change how practitioners plead and prove adverse possession in India today.
What the Judgment Actually Held
The critical holding of the Supreme Court in 2019 was straightforward but transformative: a person who has perfected rights by adverse possession in India is not confined to defending against an owner’s claim; they can actively sue to protect or recover that possession. This recognition places adverse possession on the same footing as other forms of title under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
The Court clarified three tight points that every litigator must now keep in mind:
- Adverse possession matures into title. After the statutory period of 12 years under Article 65, the owner’s right to recover possession is extinguished, and the adverse possessor acquires ownership in law. This new ownership can be the foundation of a fresh suit, whether for declaration, injunction, or recovery of possession.
- A “possession suit based on title” includes prescriptive title. The Court explained that “title” is not confined to original ownership or conveyance-based title. Title perfected through prescription — that is, through adverse possession — is also a recognized legal title capable of being asserted in court.
- Tacking and transmissibility are valid. Continuous hostile possession can be “tacked” (added) across successive possessors if the chain of adverse possession is uninterrupted. Further, perfected rights by adverse possession are transmissible to heirs or successors.
How Courts Actually Test Adverse Possession Claims
Even after Ravinder Kaur Grewal, adverse possession in India remains a high-burden claim. Courts are cautious because they know it amounts to divesting a lawful owner of property. Winning such a case depends not on rhetoric but on hard evidence of hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession that fits the legal test.
Here’s how judges typically examine a claim in a possession suit based on title under Article 65:
1. Hostility of Possession
The claimant must prove possession was hostile to the true owner’s title. This means there must be clear acts showing the possessor did not recognise the owner’s rights. Casual or permissive occupation (“allowed to stay for convenience”) will not suffice. Courts look for conduct such as erecting permanent structures, fencing off land, leasing it out to third parties, or resisting interference.
2. Continuity and Uninterrupted Period
The 12-year clock under Article 65 runs only when possession is open, hostile, and unbroken. Courts scrutinise gaps: if the owner successfully interrupts possession by legal notice, entry, or eviction attempts, the limitation period resets. Evidence of uninterrupted stay, tax receipts, and local authority records are critical.
3. Exclusivity and Control
Mere occupation is not enough. Courts require proof that the claimant exercised exclusive rights as an owner would, managing, maintaining, or profiting from the property. Exclusive control distinguishes adverse possession from casual encroachment.
4. Knowledge and Openness (Nec Clam)
The owner must have had the chance to know. Secret or concealed possession is insufficient. Courts prefer evidence that the claimant’s acts were open and notorious — cultivation, boundary walls, municipal assessments, or revenue records entered in their name.
5. Documentary & Oral Proof
Revenue records, municipal tax assessments, electricity/water bills, sale or lease deeds executed by the possessor, and testimonies of neighbours or local officials often tip the scales. Without such material, oral claims alone rarely succeed.
Defenses Owners Commonly Use — And How Courts Weigh Them
After Ravinder Kaur Grewal, owners facing a possession suit based on title grounded in adverse possession often deploy specific defenses. Courts now assess these defenses closely, particularly because adverse possession claims are no longer viewed merely as defensive pleas but as affirmative claims of title. The most common defenses include:
1. Challenge to Continuity of Possession
Owners argue that the possession was not continuous for the full statutory period. Evidence such as interruption notices, eviction attempts, or documented periods where the property was unused or abandoned can rebut an adverse possession claim. Courts will scrutinise timelines closely.
2. Permission or Licence (Nec Precario)
If possession was with the owner’s permission — even tacit — it cannot ripen into title. Courts distinguish between permissive occupation and hostile possession. This defence often hinges on correspondence, rent payments, or any acknowledgement by the possessor of the owner’s title.
3. Lack of Hostility or Openness
Owners may argue that possession was clandestine and thus not “nec clam” (open and notorious).
For example, if the possessor never asserted exclusive control or deliberately concealed their occupation, courts tend to reject the adverse possession claim.
4. Boundary Disputes and Encroachment
In cases where possession overlaps disputed boundaries, courts examine whether the possession was clearly defined and whether there was a settled demarcation. Ambiguous boundaries weaken adverse possession claims.
5. Fraud or Misrepresentation
If possession arose from fraud or misrepresentation, the owner can contend that the adverse possession is voidable. Courts require strong proof here, as fraud must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Ravinder Kaur Grewal decision reshapes the landscape of adverse possession in India. By recognising adverse possession as a valid source of title under Article 65, the Supreme Court has given litigants a powerful, affirmative pathway to assert ownership — transforming possession into a proactive cause of action rather than a defensive plea.
For anyone litigating or defending such claims, understanding this change is not optional — it is the new reality of adverse possession in India.
