Adverse possession requires acknowledging the true owner’s title and proving the specific date of commencement of possession.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title over 10.60 acres of land (Khasra No. 284) in Village Rano, Chhattisgarh, based on the doctrine of adverse possession.

They claimed the land had been vacant since 1990 and they had remained in continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful possession for 33 years.

Consequently, they sought to declare sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 1 (the original owner) in favor of Respondents No. 2 and 3 on December 23, 2022, as null and void.

The trial court (Principal District Judge, Bemetara) dismissed the suit on January 3, 2025, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential ingredients of adverse possession.

This first appeal was preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the plea of adverse possession and were consequently not entitled to a declaration of title or the cancellation of the registered sale deeds dated December 23, 2022?

Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which stipulates a 12-year limitation period for possession of immovable property based on title, beginning when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

The five-pronged test established in Karnataka Board of Waqf v. Government of India, requiring the claimant to prove the date of possession, the nature of possession, the owner's knowledge, the duration, and that possession was open and undisturbed.

The "three classic requirements" from Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur: nec vi (continuity), nec clam (publicity), and nec precario (hostile to the owner).

Per the Constitution Bench in M. Siddiq (Dead) v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhumi Case), the court held that a plea of adverse possession necessitates an acknowledgment of the true owner's title and requires strict proof through both pleadings and evidence.

The Court observed that the plaintiffs failed to meet the evidentiary burden required for adverse possession.

Documentarily, the plaintiffs’ own submissions—specifically the Kishtbandi Khatauni (2012-13) and Khasra Panchshala (2022-23)—consistently recorded Respondent No. 1 (and later Respondents No. 2 and 3) as the title and possession holders.

Orally, the testimonies were found to be deficient: Plaintiff No. 1 (PW-1) admitted he was unaware of whose land he possessed and could not identify the boundaries; PW-2 provided only approximate areas; and PW-3 could not state the date of entry.

Conversely, the defense evidence (DW-1) established that the owner’s family had been managing the land and performing agricultural work.

The Court emphasized that a claimant must clearly plead the date of entry and acknowledge the owner's title to establish a hostile animus (animus possidendi), neither of which the plaintiffs accomplished.

The Court ruled that mere possession of vacant land without proof of continuity, publicity, and hostile intent does not ripen into title.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit for declaration of title and injunction was upheld.