Permissive possession as a caretaker cannot ripen into adverse possession regardless of the duration of stay.

The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit in 2004 seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a 4948 sq. mtr. property in Maninagar, Ahmedabad, designated as "Christian Graveyard" (Final Plot No. 70).

The plaintiffs claimed their father occupied the land in 1935 and constructed houses, and they continued possession after his death in 1976.

They asserted ownership via adverse possession, citing revenue entries, tax bills, and electricity connections.

The State (Defendant No. 1) and the All India Christian Council (Defendant No. 2) contested the suit, labeling the plaintiffs as encroachers on government land allotted for a graveyard.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on January 5, 2026, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove hostile possession.

Whether the plaintiffs proved they became owners and occupants of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession.

Whether the plaintiffs were permissive users (caretakers) or possessed the land as adverse possessors.

The Court applied the doctrine of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (peaceful, open, and continuous possession) as refined in Karnataka Board of WAKF v. Government of India, requiring the claimant to prove the exact date of possession and a clear animus possidendi to exclude the true owner.

Regarding government land, it relied on R. Hanumaiah v. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, which mandates a higher evidentiary standard of 30 years of continuous adverse possession under Article 112 of the Limitation Act.

It further applied Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur, establishing that revenue entries (mutation) do not create or extinguish title but are only for tax collection purposes.

The court relied on Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah, which cautions courts against granting titles to land grabbers of public property.

The Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish the "hostile" nature of their possession.

During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that his forefathers acted as caretakers of the graveyard, assisting in digging tombs and performing funeral works.

This admission shifted the nature of possession from "adverse" to "permissive" or "service-oriented," which cannot ripen into ownership.

The Court found that the tax bills and electricity connections produced by the plaintiffs were insufficient to prove title against the State.

Furthermore, the land remained recorded as "Christian Graveyard" in revenue records, and the lack of building permission from the Municipal Corporation suggested unauthorized encroachment rather than a claim of right.

The Court emphasized that for public land, the State cannot be expected to monitor every tract daily; thus, long-term occupation alone, without a clear act of dispossessing the State with hostile intent, does not constitute adverse possession.

It held that the plaintiffs were merely permissive users/caretakers and failed to provide clear, cogent evidence of adverse possession for the statutory period of 30 years against the Government.

The prayer for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction was denied.

Civil Application for stay was also disposed of.