Introduction:

In the case of Second Appeal No. 434 of 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court grappled with the intricate facets of adverse possession, refusing to grant a declaration of title due to the appellant’s inability to prove continuous possession with knowledge of the defendants. The single-judge bench, led by Justice Hirdesh, emphasized the necessity of proving adverse possession through three ‘necks’: nec vi, nec clam, and nec precario.

Arguments:

The appellant, represented by Advocate Yash Pal Rathore, relied on an agreement to sell and asserted adverse possession. However, the court, referencing Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, dismissed the agreement due to its non-compliance with the required format for tangible immovable property worth over Rs 100. DGA Anand Bhatt, appearing for the respondent state, contested the insufficiency of evidence presented by the plaintiff regarding continuous adverse possession.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Hirdesh, drawing from Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. (2019), acknowledged the right of a person claiming title by adverse possession to maintain a suit for restoration/protection of possession. However, the court found the evidence before the lower court inadequate to establish continuous adverse possession with knowledge of the defendants. The lack of conclusive proof hindered the appellant from perfecting title over the suit land.