Declaration of Title via Adverse Possession Fails Without Joining Necessary Parties and Proving Hostile Possession

The Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1988 seeking a declaration of title by way of adverse possession over two plots: Schedule A (Plot No. 20) and Schedule B (Plot No. 1361)

They claimed that these plots were amalgamated with their ancestral land (Plot No. 21) in 1945–1947 and that they had remained in open, continuous, and hostile possession against the original raiyats since then

Specifically, Plot No. 1361 was acknowledged as Khas Mahal property of the State, settled with one Gokul Mahto in 1960

The Trial Court found the Plaintiffs in possession but dismissed the suit due to non-joinder of necessary parties (the State and real owners)

The 1st Appellate Court confirmed this dismissal in Title Appeal No. 5 of 1995

During the pendency of the Second Appeal, one of the respondents died and was not substituted, leading to partial abatement

1. Whether a suit for declaration of title via adverse possession can be maintained without joining the paramount owner (the State) and the original titleholders as necessary parties?

2. Whether mere possession, allegedly permitted or "allowed" by the rightful owner, fulfills the legal requirements to perfect title through adverse possession?

Order I, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which stipulates that while no suit shall be defeated by misjoinder/non-joinder generally, this protection does not apply to the non-joinder of a "necessary party"

Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC, the court may add parties whose presence is necessary for effectual adjudication

doctrine of Adverse Possession, which requires possession to be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (not by force, not by stealth, not by permission)

established that "mere possession" does not equate to "adverse possession" unless it is hostile to the rightful owner for the statutory period of 12 years (or 30 years against the State)

The Court reasoned that since the Plaintiffs admitted Plot No. 1361 was Khas Mahal land, the State of Jharkhand was a necessary party; without the State’s presence, the court could not adjudicate a claim of adverse possession against it

the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings were self-contradictory: they claimed the "real owners allowed" them to perfect title

The Court analyzed this and held that if a rightful owner "allows" possession, it becomes permissive or by prescription, which can never ripen into adverse possession regardless of the duration

The Court also noted the failure to disclose the specific date when the "hostile" possession commenced, making the plea legally insufficient

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings

The appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed