Long possession alone does not establish adverse possession without a clear hostile denial of the true owner’s title.

The plaintiffs sued for possession of land, alleging that the defendant had encroached upon it in 1985 and constructed a dwelling.

The defendant claimed that Sarnu had orally gifted him the land in 1949; alternatively, he claimed title by adverse possession.

The Trial Court found the plaintiffs to be owners, rejected the adverse-possession plea, and partly decreed the suit: it awarded the plaintiffs the vacant portion but not the portion under the defendant’s construction, directing payment of the average market value for the constructed portion.

The First Appellate Court reversed, holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession.

The plaintiffs appealed.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession, when his case included a claim of possession under an alleged gift from Sarnu

2. Whether the plaintiffs’ title-based suit for possession was barred by limitation because the defendant’s possession began before the alleged 1985 encroachment

Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a title-based suit for possession must be brought within twelve years from when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff; the plaintiff need not prove possession within twelve years of filing if the defendant fails to establish adverse possession.

Adverse possession requires clear pleading and proof of possession that is open, peaceful, continuous, and hostile to the true owner’s title, with the claimant identifying when and how the possession became hostile; mere long possession is insufficient.

The Court relied on, among other authorities, Tilak Raj v. Bhagat Ram, Shishi Ram v. Megh Chand, Pritu alias Pritam Singh v. Balwant Singh, and Bhag Singh v. Basant Kaur for these principles.

Evidence of house-tax payments and the electricity connection supported the conclusion that the defendant had occupied the property for many years, but did not establish that his possession had become hostile to the plaintiffs’ title.

The defendant did not produce his application before the revenue authorities to show that he had asserted a hostile claim, and the revenue entry recording his possession followed an order made in 1986.

His alleged gift was not proved, but the failure of that claim did not itself prove adverse possession.

Because the defendant did not establish when or how his possession became hostile, the First Appellate Court wrongly equated long possession with adverse possession.

The limitation objection therefore failed: the defendant had not proved the adverse possession necessary to start the Article 65 period.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, and restored the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, including its directions concerning the vacant and constructed portions of the land.