Long possession under an unregistered sale agreement alone does not establish adverse possession.

The plaintiffs, heirs of K.R. Arumugam, sought declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of property their father had purchased in 1986.

They claimed the defendant, a relative, entered into permissive possession in 2000; the defendant claimed that Arumugam had agreed to sell the property to him in 1988, delivered possession, and that he had acquired title by adverse possession.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding for the defendant; the first appellate court reversed and decreed the suit.

The defendant appealed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. Whether the first appellate court was right to set aside the trial court’s decree when the defendant had been in possession under the 1988 document

2. Whether the plaintiffs remained entitled to declaration and recovery of possession despite the defendant’s possession for more than 12 years

3. Whether the defendant’s possession was adverse to the plaintiffs and had matured into title

The Court applied the principle that long-term possession alone does not establish adverse possession: the claimant must prove possession that is nec vi, nec clam, nec precario—without force, secrecy or permission—and establish its adverse character

It also held that the 1988 document, being an unregistered sale agreement rather than a sale deed, did not convey title to the defendant.

The judgment identifies Section 100 CPC as the basis for the second appeal but cites no specific statutory provision or precedent governing transfer of title or adverse possession.

The plaintiffs’ father’s title and the plaintiffs’ status as his legal heirs were established and not disputed.

The defendant’s document was only an agreement providing for payment of the balance and execution of a sale deed within one month; no deed was executed, and the defendant took no steps to obtain one during the father’s lifetime.

The Court therefore found that the agreement did not confer ownership and that the defendant had not proved the requisite adverse possession.

His continued possession, by itself, was insufficient to defeat the plaintiffs’ established title.

The Court upheld the first appellate court’s decree for declaration and recovery of possession, and dismissed the second appeal.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.