Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which had rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for partition and separate possession on the ground of limitation. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the defendant’s exclusive possession and ownership claims over the suit property for more than 12 years before filing the suit. The Court observed, “When a co-sharer or co-owner asserts exclusive ownership and possession to the knowledge of the others, the claim for partition must be made within 12 years from such assertion.” It held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
Facts
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property, claiming themselves to be co-owners and co-sharers. The property in question originally belonged to the plaintiffs’ father. After his death, it was jointly inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendant, who was also one of the siblings. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant had continued to occupy and enjoy the entire property and despite repeated requests, had refused to effect partition.
The defendant resisted the suit, claiming absolute ownership of the property on the basis of long-standing exclusive possession, and asserted that he had ousted the plaintiffs more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit. He contended that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of this exclusive possession and acquiesced in it, and thus the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.
Both the trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit, concluding that the defendant had proved exclusive possession to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that the suit was not filed within the prescribed limitation period.
Issues
- Whether the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession against the plaintiffs, who were his co-sharers.
- Whether the plaintiffs were aware of the defendant’s exclusive possession, thus triggering the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether a suit for partition by co-owners is maintainable after 12 years of ouster and exclusive possession by another co-owner.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners (plaintiffs) contended that in law, possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be on behalf of all, and that limitation cannot run unless there is a clear ouster. They argued that mere exclusive possession by one co-sharer does not extinguish the rights of others unless there is an overt act of exclusion and knowledge thereof. They submitted that no such act had been committed by the defendant, and that they remained co-owners in the eyes of law. Hence, their suit for partition could not be treated as barred by limitation.
The petitioners also challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below as being perverse and contrary to settled law, asserting that the burden was on the defendant to establish ouster with clear and convincing evidence, which he had failed to discharge.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondent (defendant) maintained that he had been in continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive possession of the suit property for over 12 years and had been dealing with the property as its absolute owner. He argued that the plaintiffs were well aware of this situation and had chosen not to assert any rights for decades. The respondent pointed to various documents, including utility bills, municipal records, and his name appearing as owner, to substantiate his claim of adverse possession. He argued that limitation began running when the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the adverse claim, and by not acting for over 12 years, their right was extinguished.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the principle that co-owners are presumed to be in joint possession unless a case of ouster is clearly established. However, it held that such presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that one co-owner had been exercising exclusive ownership rights, openly and to the knowledge of others, for over 12 years.
The Court placed reliance on Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 12 years for a suit based on possession adverse to the plaintiff. It clarified that adverse possession can arise even between co-owners when one co-owner excludes the others from enjoyment and asserts absolute ownership to their knowledge. The Court noted that the evidence on record clearly established the defendant’s exclusive possession and the plaintiffs’ awareness of the same well before 12 years of filing the suit.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to the following key judgments:
- K.K. Verma v. Union of India – To affirm that a mere assertion of co-ownership is insufficient if possession and conduct show otherwise.
- Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed (AIR 1981 SC 77) – Which held that the burden lies on the party claiming adverse possession to prove ouster by overt and hostile acts.
- P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy (AIR 1957 SC 314) – Where it was held that possession of a co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of others unless proved to be hostile.
- Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash – Clarified that ouster must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court carefully distinguished between these precedents, holding that in the present case, unlike in P. Lakshmi Reddy, the ouster was proven through documentary evidence and conduct of the parties, satisfying the legal threshold of adverse possession.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court concluded that the defendant had consistently treated the suit property as his own, to the exclusion of other co-sharers. His possession was not merely exclusive but also adverse, as demonstrated through overt acts such as mutation in revenue records, payment of taxes, and refusal to partition despite demands. The Court held:
“The plaintiffs stood by in silence while the defendant exercised rights of absolute ownership for decades. This amounts to acquiescence in his adverse possession.”
The Court further emphasized that mere familial relationship does not indefinitely extend the presumption of joint ownership. Once the conduct indicates a severance of unity and exclusive enjoyment to the knowledge of others, limitation begins to run.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissed the appeal. It held that the suit for partition was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the defendant’s adverse and exclusive possession of the suit property for more than 12 years. The Court concluded that there was a clear case of ouster and acquiescence, and the plaintiffs’ right to claim partition stood extinguished.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for property disputes involving co-owners. It reiterates that while co-ownership creates a presumption of joint possession, that presumption is not eternal. When one co-owner overtly asserts exclusive title and possession, and others have knowledge of such assertion but fail to act within 12 years, their claims can be defeated by limitation. The ruling reinforces the importance of vigilance in asserting property rights and the dangers of passive acquiescence.
Referred Cases and Their Role
- Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed – Clarified the burden of proof in ouster cases among co-sharers.
- P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy – Explained the presumption of joint possession and its rebuttal.
- Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash – Reiterated that mere non-participation in possession is insufficient to claim ouster.
- These cases were used to establish the legal threshold and burden of proof for ouster and adverse possession among co-owners.
FAQs
1. Can a co-owner lose their share in property due to delay in claiming partition?
Yes, if another co-owner has been in exclusive, adverse possession for over 12 years and the claim is delayed, the right may be lost due to limitation.
2. What is required to prove ouster among co-owners?
Clear and hostile acts by one co-owner, coupled with knowledge and inaction by the others, are required to prove ouster.
3. Does mere exclusive possession by a co-owner amount to adverse possession?
Not necessarily. Exclusive possession must be accompanied by acts that clearly show exclusion and assertion of exclusive ownership.
