K.T. KURUNGOTTUKANDI RARICHAKUTTY Vs. ARANDA RARICHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Adverse possession" is a topic that has glutted the law journals over passage of time. The decisions on it being innumerable, as a necessary sequel, varying opinions have found its place. This reference has arisen taking note of discordant notes between George v. Balakrishnan (2014(4) KLT 788) and Kerala State Represented by the Chief Secretary, Trivandrum and Others v. Brijit and Others (2018(2) KHC 521).

(2.) The questions posed in the reference are:

(3.) The classical requirement of adverse possession is "nec vi, nec clam and nec precario" which means without violence, without stealth and without permission. Uninterrupted possession for the statutory period satisfying all the three ingredients stated above, amounts to adverse possession. To constitute adverse possession, the possession must be, as the terms implied, "adverse", in derogation, of the rights of the true owner. Does it mean that the person in possession must be aware as to the identity of the true owner and should bring to his notice that the possession is in denial of his title. To call possession "adverse", what is material is the animus. There has to be a hostile animus. The intention to exclude the whole world from challenging a person's possession necessarily implies possession with hostile animus, to exclude all others including the rightful owner. The same would be sufficient to constitute adverse possession. In view of the judgment by a three judge's bench of the Apex Court in Kshitish Chandra Bose v Commissioner of Ranchi (AIR 1981 SC 707), we deem it unnecessary to refer to various other judgments on the issue. The three judge's bench held thus :