Adverse possession is the rule of Indian law under which a person who has openly held someone else’s immovable property as his own, without the owner’s permission and without interruption, for twelve years \u2013 thirty years where the owner is the government \u2013 can defeat the owner’s suit for possession and, since the Supreme Court’s decision in 2019, can himself sue to protect or recover the property. It is not a reward for trespass so much as a consequence of the owner’s inaction: the Limitation Act, 1963 bars the owner’s suit after the period runs out and extinguishes his right. This guide explains the statute, the five things a claimant must prove, the situations in which possession can never be adverse, the special position of government land, how such a suit is fought, and the leading Supreme Court judgments, so that both owners and possessors know where they stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adverse possession at a glance<\/p>\n
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi \u2013 October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ownership of immovable property in India does not depend on possession; an owner who leaves his land vacant for decades remains the owner. The Supreme Court put it plainly in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004), in a passage it quoted again in 2019: non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time will not affect his title. What changes the position is a different person taking possession and holding it in a way that is hostile to the owner, openly and continuously, for the period the Limitation Act allows the owner to sue. When that period ends, the owner’s suit is barred and, under Section 27, his right to the property is extinguished; the person in possession is then left with a title that the courts recognise. “Squatter’s rights”, the phrase readers often search for, is the informal name for this result, but the Indian rule is narrower than the phrase suggests, because the law places the whole burden on the possessor and treats the plea with suspicion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 fixes the period for every kind of suit. Article 64 covers a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, where the plaintiff while in possession has been dispossessed; the period is twelve years from the date of dispossession. Article 65 covers a suit for possession of immovable property, or any interest in it, based on title; the period is again twelve years, but it runs from the time when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The difference matters. Under Article 65 the owner does not have to prove when he lost possession; it is for the defendant, who pleads adverse possession, to prove when his possession became adverse and that twelve years have since run. The Explanation to Article 65 adds three special rules: where the suit is by a remainderman, a reversioner (other than a landlord) or a devisee, the defendant’s possession becomes adverse only when the estate of that person falls into possession; where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to possession on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female, the possession becomes adverse only when the female dies; and where the suit is by a purchaser at a court sale and the judgment-debtor was out of possession at the date of the sale, the purchaser is treated as the representative of the judgment-debtor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Article 112 gives a longer period to the State: any suit by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government (other than a suit before the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction) may be filed within thirty years, counted from the time the period would begin to run against a like suit by a private person. This is the origin of the “30 years for government land” rule. Section 27 then provides that at the determination of the period limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property is extinguished. Section 27 is what turns a mere bar on the remedy into a loss of the right itself, and it is the reason adverse possession produces a title rather than only a defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court has repeated the requirements in a long line of cases, and summarised them in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004) in a passage it adopted again in Ravinder Kaur Grewal (2019). A person claiming adverse possession must show on what date he came into possession; what the nature of his possession was; whether the fact of his possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued; and that his possession was open and undisturbed. The possession must be “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” \u2013 without force, without secrecy and without permission \u2013 and must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the true owner. Two further elements run through the judgments. The first is the physical fact of exclusive possession together with the animus possidendi, the intention to hold the property as owner against the whole world. In P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, quoted in the 2019 judgment, the Court described a two-pronged test: the owner’s neglect, measured by the limitation rules, and a specific positive intention to dispossess on the part of the adverse possessor, which is what shifts the title away from the paper owner. The second is communication: in Krishnamurthy S. Setlur, also quoted in 2019, the Court said the claimant has to plead and prove the date on and from which he claims to be in exclusive, continuous and undisturbed possession, and has to communicate his hostility to the real owner. A possessor who holds quietly, hoping not to be noticed, is not holding adversely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Government of Kerala v. Joseph (2023 INSC 693) the Supreme Court restated the principles as a list, which is the most useful current summary. Possession must be open, clear, continuous and hostile to the claim or possession of the other party. The person claiming adverse possession must show clear and cogent evidence to substantiate the claim. Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant the right of adverse possession on its own. The possession must be accompanied by animus possidendi, the intention to possess. The passing of an ejectment order does not by itself break the possession or amount to dispossession. A plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars, such as when the possession became adverse. A claim of independent title and a claim of adverse possession at the same time are contradictory pleas. The burden of proof rests on the person claiming adverse possession. And where the land belongs to the government, the court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Possession that begins with the owner’s permission is not adverse, however long it lasts, because the third requirement \u2013 nec precario, without permission \u2013 is missing. A tenant holds under the landlord; a licensee or caretaker holds under the licensor; an agent or employee holds for the principal; a co-owner in possession of the whole property holds it with the consent of the other co-owners; and a son, brother or other relative living in family property holds with the family’s consent. In each case the possession can become adverse only if the possessor openly repudiates the owner’s title \u2013 disclaims the tenancy, refuses to recognise the co-owners, asserts an exclusive title of his own \u2013 and the owner knows of the repudiation, after which the twelve years begin to run from that date. The Supreme Court in Government of Kerala v. Joseph quoted the rule that permissive possession, to become adverse, must be established by cogent and convincing evidence. This is why the question readers ask most \u2013 whether a tenant can claim adverse possession \u2013 is answered no in the ordinary case: a tenant who stops paying rent is still a tenant whose landlord can sue for eviction, and our post on landlord and tenant disputes<\/a> explains those remedies. The same is true of a brother in possession of a jointly inherited house: his possession is for all the heirs until he openly ousts them, and the remedy of the others is a suit for partition, on which our guide to claiming a share in ancestral property<\/a> is a starting point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two rules apply where public land is involved. The first is the thirty-year period under Article 112 and the heightened scrutiny the courts apply: in Ravinder Kaur Grewal the Supreme Court recalled its earlier view that a claim of adverse possession against public property requires to be considered more seriously and effectively, because the process ultimately involves destruction of the right and title of the State to immovable property, and Government of Kerala v. Joseph lists greater care and circumspection in such cases as a settled principle. The second rule runs the other way. The State cannot claim the land of its citizens by way of adverse possession, as it is a welfare State \u2013 principle 21.11 in Government of Kerala v. Joseph. A government department that wants private land must acquire it under the land acquisition law and pay compensation; our post on land acquisition laws in India<\/a> explains that process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until 2019 a line of decisions, beginning with a one-line observation in Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat, Sirthala, held that adverse possession could be used only as a shield by a defendant and not as a sword by a plaintiff, so that a person who had completed twelve years could resist the owner’s suit but could not himself sue for a declaration of title or for an injunction. In Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014, decided on 7 August 2019) the Supreme Court rejected that view. The Court held that there is an acquisition of title by adverse possession, that there is no bar under Article 65 against a plaintiff who has perfected his title by adverse possession suing to evict a trespasser or to protect his possession, and that after being dispossessed such a person can sue on the basis of his title under Article 65. It described the earlier statement that a plaintiff cannot plead adverse possession as palpably incorrect, because the point had been conceded and never argued, and held that Gurudwara Sahib and the decisions following it did not lay down the correct law. The practical effect is that a possessor who has completed the period can file a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, and if he is thrown out he can sue for possession within twelve years of his own dispossession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the owner, the suit is one for possession based on title under Article 65, filed in the civil court for the area where the property is situated, with court fee under the Court Fees Act. The owner proves his title \u2013 the sale deed, the mutation, the revenue record \u2013 and the defendant’s possession; he need not prove when he lost possession. The whole burden of the adverse possession plea is on the defendant, who must plead the date his possession became adverse and prove the five elements with evidence such as revenue and municipal records in his name, payment of property tax and electricity bills, construction and its sanction, boundary walls, witnesses to open and exclusive use, and any notice or correspondence showing that the owner knew. Our post on the Specific Relief Act<\/a> explains the remedies of possession and injunction, and the injunction<\/a> that is usually sought at the start to preserve the position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the possessor who wants to assert his title after 2019, the suit is one for a declaration<\/a> of title by adverse possession and a permanent injunction against interference, or for possession if he has been dispossessed. The plea must be specific: a plaint that claims ownership by purchase and, in the alternative, adverse possession is self-contradictory, because a person who asserts his own title admits that his possession was as owner and not adverse to anyone; the Supreme Court in Government of Kerala v. Joseph lists this among the settled principles. In both kinds of suit the limitation period is calculated from the date on which possession became adverse, and our limitation calculator<\/a> and Delhi court fee and jurisdiction calculator<\/a> help with the dates and the fee. A pending suit about the property should also be noted on any later transfer, which is the subject of our guide to lis pendens<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because adverse possession runs only against an owner who does nothing, the protection is to act within the twelve years, and to act in ways that leave a record. Keep the title documents and the mutation in the revenue and municipal records in your own name, and have them corrected if an occupant’s name appears; pay the property tax yourself; visit the property and record the visits; if someone is allowed to occupy it, put the permission in writing as a lease or licence with a fixed term, because written permission is the surest answer to a later plea of hostile possession; and if an occupant repudiates your title or an encroachment appears, send a written notice and file a suit for possession, or for injunction, well within twelve years of the date you learn of it. A suit filed in time stops the period from running against the owner. Fencing and signboards help to show that possession was not open to the world, but they are no substitute for a suit once an occupant has asserted a claim. Verifying the title and possession before buying property is equally important, and our note on property title verification<\/a> explains what to check.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, decided on 16 April 2004, is the source of the five-point test \u2013 the date of entry, the nature of the possession, the other side’s knowledge, the duration, and that the possession was open and undisturbed \u2013 and of the statements that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and that non-use by the owner even for a long time does not affect his title. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma supplied the two-pronged test that combines the owner’s neglect with the claimant’s specific positive intention to dispossess. Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, decided on 7 August 2019, holds that adverse possession confers title that a plaintiff can sue on under Article 65, and overrules the “shield only” line of cases; it also collects the earlier authorities on what must be proved. Government of Kerala v. Joseph, decided on 9 August 2023 (2023 INSC 693), sets out the current list of principles, including that long possession alone is not adverse possession, that permissive possession must be shown by cogent evidence to have become adverse, that the plea must be made with particulars, that contradictory pleas of title and adverse possession cannot be taken together, that the burden lies on the claimant, that claims against government land are examined with greater care, and that the State cannot claim a citizen’s land by adverse possession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u092d\u093e\u0930\u0924\u0940\u092f \u0915\u093e\u0928\u0942\u0928 \u0915\u093e \u0935\u0939 \u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e \u0939\u0948 \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0924\u0939\u0924 \u0915\u094b\u0908 \u0935\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f, \u091c\u094b \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0926\u0942\u0938\u0930\u0947 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u091a\u0932 \u0938\u0902\u092a\u0924\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092a\u0930 \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e, \u0916\u0941\u0932\u0947 \u0924\u094c\u0930 \u092a\u0930, \u0932\u0917\u093e\u0924\u093e\u0930 \u0914\u0930 \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0947 \u0935\u093f\u0930\u094b\u0927 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0938\u093e\u0932 \u0924\u0915 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u0930\u0916\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0947 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u092e\u0941\u0915\u0926\u092e\u0947 \u0915\u094b \u0939\u0930\u093e \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948 \u0914\u0930 2019 \u0915\u0947 \u092c\u093e\u0926 \u0916\u0941\u0926 \u092d\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u0935\u093e\u092e\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0935 \u0915\u0940 \u0918\u094b\u0937\u0923\u093e \u0915\u093e \u092e\u0941\u0915\u0926\u092e\u093e \u0915\u0930 \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u092a\u0930\u093f\u0938\u0940\u092e\u093e \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0928\u093f\u092f\u092e, 1963 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u0942\u091a\u0940 \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 65 \u0938\u094d\u0935\u093e\u092e\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0935 \u0915\u0947 \u0906\u0927\u093e\u0930 \u092a\u0930 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u092e\u0941\u0915\u0926\u092e\u0947 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0938\u093e\u0932 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u0935\u0927\u093f \u0926\u0947\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u094b \u0909\u0938 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0938\u0947 \u0917\u093f\u0928\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948 \u091c\u092c \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0935\u093e\u0926\u0940 \u0915\u093e \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u0935\u093e\u0926\u0940 \u0915\u0947 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u0939\u094b \u091c\u093e\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948; \u0905\u0928\u0941\u091a\u094d\u091b\u0947\u0926 112 \u0915\u0947\u0902\u0926\u094d\u0930 \u092f\u093e \u0930\u093e\u091c\u094d\u092f \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u094b \u0924\u0940\u0938 \u0938\u093e\u0932 \u0926\u0947\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948; \u0914\u0930 \u0927\u093e\u0930\u093e 27 \u0915\u0947 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u0938\u093e\u0930 \u0905\u0935\u0927\u093f \u0938\u092e\u093e\u092a\u094d\u0924 \u0939\u094b\u0928\u0947 \u092a\u0930 \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u093e \u0938\u0902\u092a\u0924\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092a\u0930 \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0938\u092e\u093e\u092a\u094d\u0924 \u0939\u094b \u091c\u093e\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u0926\u093e\u0935\u093e \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u0947 \u0915\u094b \u092f\u0939 \u0938\u093f\u0926\u094d\u0927 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u093e \u0939\u094b\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948 \u0915\u093f \u0909\u0938\u0915\u093e \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u0915\u093f\u0938 \u0924\u093e\u0930\u0940\u0916 \u0938\u0947 \u0936\u0941\u0930\u0942 \u0939\u0941\u0906, \u0909\u0938\u0915\u093e \u0938\u094d\u0935\u0930\u0942\u092a \u0915\u094d\u092f\u093e \u0925\u093e, \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u094b \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0925\u0940, \u0935\u0939 \u0915\u093f\u0924\u0928\u0947 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0924\u0915 \u091a\u0932\u093e, \u0914\u0930 \u0935\u0939 \u0916\u0941\u0932\u093e \u0914\u0930 \u0928\u093f\u0930\u094d\u092c\u093e\u0927 \u0925\u093e \u2013 \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u092c\u0932, \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u091b\u093f\u092a\u093e\u0935 \u0914\u0930 \u092c\u093f\u0928\u093e \u0905\u0928\u0941\u092e\u0924\u093f (“nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”)\u0964 \u0915\u0947\u0935\u0932 \u0932\u0902\u092c\u0947 \u0938\u092e\u092f \u0924\u0915 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u092a\u0930\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092a\u094d\u0924 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u0948, \u0914\u0930 \u0915\u093f\u0930\u093e\u092f\u0947\u0926\u093e\u0930, \u0932\u093e\u0907\u0938\u0947\u0902\u0938\u0927\u093e\u0930\u0940, \u0926\u0947\u0916\u092d\u093e\u0932 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u0947 \u092f\u093e \u092a\u0930\u093f\u0935\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u0926\u0938\u094d\u092f \u0915\u093e \u0905\u0928\u0941\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0938\u0947 \u0936\u0941\u0930\u0942 \u0939\u0941\u0906 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e \u0924\u092c \u0924\u0915 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0939\u094b\u0924\u093e \u091c\u092c \u0924\u0915 \u0935\u0939 \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0947 \u0938\u093e\u092e\u0928\u0947 \u0916\u0941\u0932\u0947 \u0924\u094c\u0930 \u092a\u0930 \u0909\u0938\u0915\u0947 \u0938\u094d\u0935\u093e\u092e\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0935 \u0915\u094b \u0928\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u0928 \u0926\u0947\u0964 \u0938\u092c\u0942\u0924 \u0915\u093e \u092d\u093e\u0930 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e\u0927\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u092a\u0930 \u0939\u0948 \u0914\u0930 \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093c\u092e\u0940\u0928 \u0915\u0947 \u0926\u093e\u0935\u094b\u0902 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u0901\u091a \u0905\u0926\u093e\u0932\u0924 \u0905\u0927\u093f\u0915 \u0938\u093e\u0935\u0927\u093e\u0928\u0940 \u0938\u0947 \u0915\u0930\u0924\u0940 \u0939\u0948, \u091c\u092c\u0915\u093f \u0930\u093e\u091c\u094d\u092f \u0938\u094d\u0935\u092f\u0902 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0928\u093e\u0917\u0930\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0940 \u091c\u093c\u092e\u0940\u0928 \u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u0947 \u0938\u0947 \u0928\u0939\u0940\u0902 \u0932\u0947 \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e (\u0915\u0947\u0930\u0932 \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930 \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092e \u091c\u094b\u0938\u0947\u092b, 2023)\u0964 \u0930\u0935\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0930 \u0915\u094c\u0930 \u0917\u094d\u0930\u0947\u0935\u093e\u0932 \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092e \u092e\u0902\u091c\u0940\u0924 \u0915\u094c\u0930 (2019) \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0938\u0930\u094d\u0935\u094b\u091a\u094d\u091a \u0928\u094d\u092f\u093e\u092f\u093e\u0932\u092f \u0928\u0947 \u092e\u093e\u0928\u093e \u0915\u093f \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0938\u093e\u0932 \u092a\u0942\u0930\u0947 \u0915\u0930\u0928\u0947 \u0935\u093e\u0932\u093e \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e\u0927\u093e\u0930\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u0935\u093e\u092e\u093f\u0924\u094d\u0935 \u0915\u0940 \u0918\u094b\u0937\u0923\u093e \u0914\u0930 \u0928\u093f\u0937\u0947\u0927\u093e\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e \u0915\u093e \u092e\u0941\u0915\u0926\u092e\u093e \u0915\u0930 \u0938\u0915\u0924\u093e \u0939\u0948\u0964 \u092e\u093e\u0932\u093f\u0915 \u0915\u0947 \u0932\u093f\u090f \u092c\u091a\u093e\u0935 \u0915\u093e \u0909\u092a\u093e\u092f \u092f\u0939 \u0939\u0948 \u0915\u093f \u0935\u0939 \u092c\u093e\u0930\u0939 \u0938\u093e\u0932 \u0915\u0947 \u092d\u0940\u0924\u0930 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u0947 \u092f\u093e \u0928\u093f\u0937\u0947\u0927\u093e\u091c\u094d\u091e\u093e \u0915\u093e \u092e\u0941\u0915\u0926\u092e\u093e \u0926\u093e\u092f\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0947 \u0914\u0930 \u0915\u093f\u0938\u0940 \u0915\u094b \u092d\u0940 \u0938\u0902\u092a\u0924\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0930\u0939\u0928\u0947 \u0915\u0940 \u0905\u0928\u0941\u092e\u0924\u093f \u0932\u093f\u0916\u093f\u0924 \u0915\u093f\u0930\u093e\u092f\u0947\u0928\u093e\u092e\u0947 \u092f\u093e \u0932\u093e\u0907\u0938\u0947\u0902\u0938 \u0938\u0947 \u0939\u0940 \u0926\u0947\u0964<\/p>\n\n\n\n Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 allows an owner twelve years, from the date the occupant’s possession became adverse to him, to sue for possession on the basis of his title. When the twelve years end, Section 27 extinguishes the owner’s right to the property, and the occupant’s possession ripens into title.<\/p> <\/div> The claimant must prove the date on which he came into possession, the nature of the possession, that the owner knew of it, how long it continued, and that it was open and undisturbed; the possession must be without force, without secrecy and without permission, and accompanied by the intention to hold as owner. The burden is entirely on the claimant (Karnataka Board of Wakf, 2004; Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023).<\/p> <\/div> The period against the Central or a State Government is thirty years under Article 112, and the Supreme Court has said such claims must be examined with greater care and circumspection. The reverse is not allowed: the State cannot take a citizen’s land by adverse possession, as it is a welfare State (Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023).<\/p> <\/div> Not while the possession remains permissive. A tenant holds under the landlord, so the possession is not hostile. It can become adverse only if the tenant openly repudiates the landlord’s title and the landlord knows of it, and permissive possession becoming adverse must be proved by cogent and convincing evidence. Non-payment of rent alone makes the tenant a defaulter, not an adverse possessor.<\/p> <\/div> Since Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019) a person who has perfected title by adverse possession can sue for a declaration of title and an injunction, and can sue for possession under Article 65 if he is dispossessed. The earlier view that adverse possession was only a shield was held not to be correct law.<\/p> <\/div> No. Mere possession over a property for a long period does not grant adverse possession on its own (Government of Kerala v. Joseph, 2023). The possession must have been hostile to the owner, open and to his knowledge, and the date it became adverse must be pleaded and proved.<\/p> <\/div> No. The Supreme Court treats a claim of independent title and a claim of adverse possession made at the same time as contradictory pleas, because a person claiming to be the owner admits that his possession was as owner, not adverse to the owner.<\/p> <\/div> By suing for possession or an injunction within twelve years of the date the possession became adverse, by keeping the title and revenue records in his own name and paying the property tax, and by giving any occupant written permission as a lease or licence, so that the possession is permissive and cannot become hostile without an open repudiation.<\/p> <\/div> A co-owner or a family member in possession of shared property holds it with the consent of the others, so the possession is permissive and not adverse until the possessor openly ousts the others and they know of it; only then does the period begin. The remedy of the others is a suit for partition.<\/p> <\/div> Yes, if every element is proved. Vacant land is the usual subject of such claims, but the claimant must still show open, continuous and exclusive possession from a definite date, to the knowledge of the owner, with the intention to hold as owner, for twelve years (thirty against the government). Occasional use, grazing or parking does not amount to possession that is adequate in continuity, publicity and extent.<\/p> <\/div> Not while the lease, or the relationship it created, continues. A lessee’s possession is permissive and therefore not hostile, and permissive possession becomes adverse only on an open repudiation of the lessor’s title that is proved by cogent evidence; the twelve years run from that repudiation, not from the start of the lease. The lessor’s remedy against a lessee who stays on after the lease ends is a suit for possession.<\/p> <\/div> It is a consequence of the owner’s inaction rather than a right the possessor can demand. The Limitation Act bars the owner’s suit after twelve years and extinguishes his right under Section 27, and the courts have said a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since 2019, however, a possessor who has completed the period has a title that he can enforce by suit.<\/p> <\/div> Adverse possession is the rule under which a person who has held another person’s immovable property as his own, openly, without the owner’s permission and without interruption, for the period the Limitation Act, 1963 allows the owner to sue can defeat the owner’s claim and end up with the title. Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act gives the owner twelve years, from the date the possession became adverse to him, to sue for possession on the basis of title (thirty years for the Central or a State Government under Article 112), and Section 27 extinguishes the owner’s right to the property when that period ends.<\/p> <\/div> <\/div>\n\n\n\n Adverse possession in India is a narrow doctrine with a wide reputation. The statute gives an owner twelve years to recover possession from a hostile occupant \u2013 thirty years for the government \u2013 and takes his right away when the time runs out; the courts require the occupant to prove every element of hostile, open, continuous and exclusive possession from a definite date, treat the plea with suspicion, and refuse it altogether where the possession began with permission or where the claimant also calls himself the owner. Since 2019 a possessor who has completed the period can sue on his title, and since 2023 the principles are collected in one judgment. For an owner the lesson is to act within the period and to put every permission in writing; for a possessor it is that the records, not the years, decide the case. Century Law Firm’s property-litigation team advises owners and possessors in adverse possession, partition and injunction suits in the Delhi district courts and the Delhi High Court; see our practice areas<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sources used for this post: the Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 27 and Articles 64, 65 and 112 of the Schedule); Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014, judgment dated 7 August 2019 (including its quotations from Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India (2004), P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) and Krishnamurthy S. Setlur); and Government of Kerala v. Joseph, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 3142 of 2010, judgment dated 9 August 2023, 2023 INSC 693.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat adverse possession means in Indian law<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The statute: Articles 64, 65 and 112, and Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The five things a claimant must prove<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When possession is never adverse: tenants, licensees, co-owners and family members<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Government land, and the State as a claimant<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Can the possessor sue, or only defend? The 2019 ruling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How a suit involving adverse possession is fought<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How owners protect their land<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key Supreme Court judgments on adverse possession<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u092a\u094d\u0930\u0924\u093f\u0915\u0942\u0932 \u0915\u092c\u094d\u091c\u093e (Adverse Possession) \u2013 \u0939\u093f\u0902\u0926\u0940 \u092e\u0947\u0902<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n