The division bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari was of the view that mere continuous possession howsoever long it may be qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the adverse possession. It can only be admitted if it is proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner.
SC clearly elaborated on the concept of adverse possession wherein it said that mere possession however long does not mean that it is adverse to the true owner of the property. Further, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once this is proved by the plaintiff then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that he has strengthened his title by adverse possession.
The concept of adverse possession consists of the 2 important elements i.e. the possession of the property must adversely affect the plaintiff and the defendant must be in the continuous possession of the property for 12 years or more.
Wherefore, the light of various precedents the SC came to the conclusion that the principle of acquisition of title by adverse possession must be used only in the exceptional circumstance of hostility, exclusive and assertion and not in a light-hearted manner.
1830
1640
630
54
101277