Long, permissive possession without a pleaded hostile commencement cannot establish adverse possession.

The appellant-plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over a shop in property No. B-4A/3, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, and a permanent injunction against dispossession.

He alleged that his family gave him the shop in 1990 and that his possession became hostile after a partition deed dated 19 October 1992.

The defendant claimed ownership through the partition and subsequent conveyances and asserted that the plaintiff was a tenant.

The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, finding insufficient pleadings of adverse possession and holding that the later suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC.

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for a declaration of ownership by adverse possession, despite the absence of specific pleadings identifying when possession became hostile to the true owner.

2. Whether the plaintiff’s long-standing possession and alleged oral family arrangement supported a claim to ownership of the shop.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a plaint may be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action.

A claim of ownership by adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal possession that is actual, open, continuous and hostile to the true owner’s title; mere long or uninterrupted possession is insufficient.

The claimant must plead and prove when hostile possession commenced and show an overt assertion of ownership, to the true owner’s knowledge, because the limitation period cannot begin without that hostile assertion.

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s formulation in Bhag Singh (Dead) through Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (Dead) through LRs, 2026 INSC 983.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s own pleadings placed the shop in the portion allotted to Revati Devi under the 1992 partition deed, while the rear portion allotted to the plaintiff’s mother and another co-owner was later sold.

The plaintiff’s assertion that he had received the shop in 1990 preceded the partition and did not establish ownership after the shop fell within Revati Devi’s share.

His account of peaceful occupation, use of electricity through a connection in the defendant’s name, and cordial family relations did not show an open and unequivocal repudiation of the true owner’s title.

Nor did the plaint specify when such hostility began.

Long possession alone therefore could not sustain the declaration sought, and the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action founded on adverse possession.

It upheld rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the appeal.

Pending applications were also disposed of.