Latest News
Back
Document:
Possession Must Follow Title Only When There is No Proof of Possession by Anyone : SC
The Supreme Court has pronounced that possession of property based on the assumption of the maxim ‘possession follows title’ does not necessarily hold a stand at all cases. It is compulsory that it is proved,there is no possession by anyone else and only then possession would follow title.
The court has said that in order to get hold of a property, an individual has to establish that he or she is entitled to that possession and that he or she is not inhibited by the laws of limitation.
In the present case, a suit was filed by the plaintiff looking out for title to the suit property and also gain possession of the suit property from the Defendant. The suit was dismissed by the trial court.
The First Appellate court, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, held that he was entitled to the title, since he was the owner of a part of the property but he could not claim possession as the defendant had a hold of the property for a long time. The High Court, after permitting the second appeal of the plaintiff said that the Plaintiff could recover half of the property, after the Advocate Commissioner identified the same.
The Supreme Court, taking into consideration the appeal filed by the defendant observed that, the High Court allowed the possession to the plaintiff as the defence of adverse possession had not been taken by the defendant. In this regard, the court said that the appellant-defendant was owner of only a portion of the suit property but he had been in the possession of the entire property for years now.
The defendant in his statement may not have pleaded adverse possession in many words but it is not obligatory of the court to look into the question that whether the Appellant- Defendant could claim title by adverse possession or not.
Elucidating the maxim ‘Possession follows title’, the bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and Navin Sinha said,
“A person claiming a decree of possession has to establish his entitlement to get such possession and also establish that his claim is not barred by the laws of limitation.
He must show that he had possession before the alleged trespasser got possession. The maxim “possession follows title” is limited in its application to property, which having regard to its nature, does not admit to actual and exclusive occupation, as in the case of open spaces accessible to all.
The presumption that possession must be deemed to follow title, arises only where there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else. In this case it is admitted that the Appellant-Defendant is in possession and not the Respondent Plaintiff.”
Document:
