 and he has always been kind enough. And that is the humility of a good teacher to take the sessions as and when the students request. And humility, my name is Justice Sankaran. And today's session, like we did a lot of sessions on the Court of Civil Procedure, we thought let's take another one of the forties of Justice Sankaran, that is on the Limitation Act. But since section 27, article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, has the interplay with the adverse position. Therefore, while creating the invite, we have given special reference that it will also take the insights on the adverse position. But be that as it may, on a Sunday and that too on a teacher's day, we are happy that the people are logging in not only on the platform, but also on the YouTube, et cetera. Thank you everyone, stay safe. And so happy teachers one day, once again. And go to you. Thank you Mr. Vikas. Thank you the participants, wish a happy teacher's day. I always wish to remember, wish to be remembered as a teacher, not as a judge, because I am involved in teaching right from 1991 to the young lawyers and to the judicial officers. Some point of time, sometimes lawyers also, and then law students. And therefore, all told, even after retirement, I'm doing the same thing. And I am running two YouTube channels, one for CTC and one for Limitation Act. You will get the link from Mr. Vikas. And today, our subject is section 27 and article 64 and 65, it's special reference to adduate exposure. This is of day-to-day use, day-to-day use. Whenever you practice on the civil side, at some point of time, you will be confronted with this question. And in almost all cases where there is no practically no defense, a last resort will be adduate exposure. Some cases it will be very strong, in the case of an adduate exposure will be strong. Sometimes people who are perfected or claim to have perfected title by adduate exposure may file this. And there are some changes to place in the Supreme Court with respect to the dictum. In respect of a suit filed by a person who has perfected title by it and it is settled finally by a three judge bench in Graeval's case. The Supreme Court justice Arun Mishra, justice Ambul Naseer and justice Amar Shah. There was a conclusion before that. And that conclusion has been now done away with by the decision in Ravinder Kaur, Graeval and others versus Manjit Kaur and others. I think it is from Panja. So we will go through all these important judgments also and the provisions. The most important thing principle to be noticed in the Limitation Act with respect to the Limitation Act is that the general principle is that the limitation only bars the remedy, not the right. I'll give an example. I borrowed money from a bank, executed the necessary documents either from sorry note or equitable mortgage or any other thing. And the bank has to file the suit. I did not pay the money, we pay the money. Bank omitted to file the suit before the expiry of the period of free. I have deposits with the bank, fixed deposits. One of the fixed deposits got matured after this period of the period. The bank resorted to appropriating the amount in the fixed deposit towards the loan amount, whether it was legal or proper. The period of limitation for filing a suit by the bank against me in respect to the loan taken by me is over. The suit is barred. But the bank came with the money in respect of a fixed deposit which matured in the main bank after the period of limitation was over in the other case. Whether the bank can appropriate it, what is the principle behind it? The principle behind is the first answer is bank yes, the bank can. What is the principle? Principle is that the limitation which was faced by the bank by not filing the suit within time did not efface, did not destroy their right. It destroyed only their remedy. And so long as that right exists, whatever remedy comes to them, they can employ, they can use it. And a defense is not also barred. Even if a right to file the suit is barred. These are all some of the principles. There is an exception to that general rule. And that exception is contained in section 27. We will read 27. Extinguishment of right to proper. And the determination of the period hereby limited any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property. His right to such property shall be extinguished. So, what are the requirements of section 27? There must be a right to institute a suit for possession of any property. A period of limitation is fixed in the limitation act or in either a statute. And that period is over. Not only the remedy is lost, but the right itself is lost. I will give an example. I have got an item of immoral property. You are my neighbor. You trespassed upon my property and reduced the property to your possession. I knew it because I am, every day I am seeing that property. I am seeing you, your activities. You denying my right, you started possessing the property. Adverse to me, continuously, openly and without an interruption for a period of 12 years. Then, what is a period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of possession against you? Period of limitation is 12 years under Article 65. The time begins to run from the date when your possession become adverse to me. So, your possession was to start with from the beginning itself adverse. So, the limitation started on that date 12 years over. I did not file this suit for recovery of possession. It is not only my right, but it is not only my remedy, but my right itself stands extinguished. Because with respect to a suit for possession of property, it cannot be kept in suspended animation, particularly an item of immoral property. There cannot be a suspense. There must be some honour for the property. There are several records connected with the property. Land revenue, land revenue, land records, payment of land revenue and so many other things connected with property. So, if I am the owner and you perfect title by adverse possession, my right itself is extinguished under section 27. And then what is that resultant possession? That title goes to you and you become the owner. By prescriptive, you will get a prescriptive title that title is as good as my original title. So, that you can exercise every right which any other title holder with respect to the property could have exercised. That is the in short the principle of section 27. Now, what are the articles closely connected with section 27? Of course, there are mortgage suits, redemption suits, foreclosure suits and all those things. But with particular reference to section 27 and with respect to emerald property, the articles are articles 64 and 65. In the 1963 act. Let us say articles 64 and 65. There are two types of suit for possession. One is in article 64 and another is in article 65. 64 speaks out for possession of emerald property based on previous possession and not on title. When the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. The period of limitation is 12 years. Time from which the period begins to run the third column of the schedule to the article of the limitation act in the date of dispossession. So what is the example? I was in possession of an item of emerald property. I have no title. Property belongs to somebody else. But I am in settled possession. For the last several years I am in possession. You are another a stranger unconnected with the property. You trespassed upon me and ousted me from possession. What is my right? I cannot find a suit based on my title because I do not have title. I have possession. That possession is as good against the whole world except the true owner. You are not the true owner. You are a trespasser. So as against that trespasser. My previous possession was good enough. And therefore I can protect that previous possession. That is possessory title as against you. But the original owner who is the title holder dispossesses me. What is my right? I cannot file a suit under article 64 based on my previous possession because such a suit is maintainable only against persons the entire world except the true owner. So as against the true owner who has title whose title is not lost by a trespasser. The person who is in possession cannot file a suit. Who has a trespasser? So a trespasser can maintain a suit for possession under article 64 against another trespasser but not against the title holder. This is it. So for possession of emerald property based on previous possession and not on title when the plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. Period of limitation is 12 years that time begins to run from the date of dispossession. Article 65 for possession of emerald property or any interest therein based on title. Possession of emerald property or any interest therein based on title. Under the 1908 act the interest therein was not therein that is added in 1963 act. So emerald property or any interest therein based on the title of the plaintiff. Period of limitation is 12 years. What time begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. So it is not date of dispossession that matters. I am the owner of the property title holder of the property. You are my neighbor, you trespassed upon that property. It is not the date of trespass that matters. It is not the date on which I went out of possession that matters. It is not the date on which you came into possession does not matter. It is the date from which your possession becomes a dual student. So all the incidents of a dualist possession must belong to you and that must have the adequate continuity, publicity and approach. You will see what are the ingredients of a dualist possession. So that dualist. What is the importance of this provision in 1964-65? Previously under the limitation act 1908 article 64 corresponded to article 142 and article 65 mainly relates to article 144 138-144-136-137 etc. So what was the possession then and what is the change brought out by the 1963 act? Before the 1963 act if a person is dispossessed he is the title holder he was dispossessed and a stranger trespassed upon the property and a few years past the defendant is claiming adverse possession for which he has to prove that he was in continuous possession underrupted possession with the animus, posedenty and the actual possession for a period of two years. That is a matter for proof from the side of the defendant but the plaintiff had to prove under the old act that he was in possession with the dualists and very many suits were being disposed on the ground and he failed to prove possession with the dualists so the burden of proof with respect to that aspect was always on the plaintiff under the 1908 act in a suit based on title under article 144 which is corresponded to article 65 the burden of proof was always on the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession within two years if he failed to prove possession even though the other questions sometimes the courts did not consider and it so happened that on a preliminary point the court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove possession within two years and the suits were being disposed on that count below and the upper court may on facts find the plaintiff had proof possession within two years and then it required a remand to the trial court again waste of time judicial time inconvenience to the parties expenditure and uncertainty to avoid all those things in 1963 at now places the burden of proof so long as the title of the plaintiff is admitted or proved then it is for the defendant to prove that he was in adverse possession so for example I am the title holder of wireless hook against you under article 65 my title is admitted by you you say that you came into possession but at the same time you admit that I am the one I was the owner or I am the title holder then I need not prove anything simply keep quiet and the whole burden of proof is on you suppose you claim a subsidiary title you claim that you are a tenant and because of the possession for a particular number of years and so many other factors you are not liable to behave it I dispute it then it is for you to prove because when you claim a subsidiary title that is under my title my title is admitted adverse possession also same thing happens you admit my title and you say that I am the title holder but you trespassed upon or you gained possession and you started possessing it adversely against me for the required number of years then also the burden of proof is entirely upon the defendant that is a welcome change brought out by the 1963 act now there are three explanations two articles 65 many of the explanations are not relevant now but for the complete sake of completion we will just touch those explanations as well not that detailed considerations are required because after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act and the abolition of various other laws it is not relevant for the purpose of this I am not saying that it is not relevant at all but not very relevant for the purpose of this article class A where the suit is by a remainder man a reverse man or a device the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the state of the remainder man a reverse man or a device as the case may be falls into possession see a Hindu below under the pristine Hindu law particularly midakshya what was her right her right was only to be maintained out of the joint family assets her husband died and she cannot hold any property she can only have protection from the income derived from the joint family in 1936 Hindu widow's right to property Hindu woman's right to property act came to force and for the first time a Hindu widow was given the right to possess the joint family her share of the joint family property for the purpose of taking the income enjoying that property and appropriating the income towards her maintenance she can maintain that property she cannot recover it and after the widow's death it will revert to the reverse man who is the reverse man mainly the brothers of the husband it will go again go to the joint family that common hotspot it will not go to the widow that was changed for the first time by section 14 of the Hindu succession act in 1936 section 14 what was the change brought out a person in possession of a joint family property in lieu of her maintenance then that widow become the absolute of that property that was the change brought out in 1936 so this takes us to such situations and clause B whereas what is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to possession of the immoral property on the death of Hindu or Muslim female the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become a widow so a female dies so a person, a male gets right only on the death of a female not the legal heirs it cannot be taken as legal heirs it may be to women or children succeeding to the state so the so far as undoers possession is concerned that starts only from the death of widow I will give an example under the first time Hindu law a widow came into possession of the property in lieu of her maintenance and while she was in possession a stranger trespassed upon the property with all the incidents of undoers possession neck v neck clamp neck precarious I will explain the trespasser continued in possession for more than 25 years or 30 years then has not the title of the widow lost no, why? because after her death it will revert to the reversioners so the reversioners will get the right to enter into the property only on the death of that widow so as against the reversioners the limitation starts on the death of the widow the period of 12 years is to be computed from that date the estate came to the hands of the reversioners that is it shall be deemed to clause A explanation A where the suit is by remainder man a reversioner or a device the possession of the dependent shall be deemed to become undoers only when the estate of the remainder man reversioner or device falls into possession only on the death of widow the reversioner gets mine so a third party who has trespassed upon the property 25 years ago his possession before the death of the widow will not be counted for computing the period of limitation under article system that is the meaning of it clause C when the suit is by a purchaser at a salient execution of it suit is by a purchaser when the jet manager was out of possession at the date of sale the purchaser shall be deemed to be a representative of the jet manager who was out of possession what happens if a court auction takes place I will give an example I got a money decree against you in execution of that money decree I attached your property emerald property and that was sold in court auction at the date of auction and it was purchased by third party stranger in court auction on the date of sale I was out of possession some other person trespassed upon that property and on the date of sale I was not in possession so how can the auction purchaser get possession from me he cannot and can he straight away claim title against that transposer no because he was not the title court he became the title holder only data so he can file a suit because the purchaser shall be deemed to be a representative of the jet manager the jet manager was not in possession you see I said the example is wrong I got a decree you are the jet manager you were not in possession I committed a mistake sorry say I got a money decree against you your property was attached and sold but on the date of sale you are not in possession a trespasser was in possession and in the course of time a third party purchasing court auction that third party on the date of sale the jet manager was out of possession X was in possession he was a trespasser can the auction purchaser file a suit against X no because on the date of dispossession he was not the title holder he becomes he can file a suit because of this legal fiction he shall be he can file he can file a suit against X how because he is deemed to be a representative of the jet manager suppose the dispossession takes place after sale today is the date of sale my suit decree your property attached and your property was sold today today the jet manager was in possession you are in possession auction took place today X purchased in court auction later you lost possession the jet manager lost possession somebody trespassed X trespassed then the auction purchaser can file a suit by that time the auction purchaser became the owner that is the meaning of clause and there is a lot of confusion with reference to article 134 section 154 and clause C of article 65 because of positive time we will not be able to discuss that that we have drawn some other day there is there are conflicting decisions of the court on that point conflicting decisions of course so far as kerala iqot is concerned kerala iqot has already distinguished some of the super publications and said that this is the principle now we are not dealing with that article 134 we are not dealing with that now we will come back to section 27 I will cite a few decisions for your conservation and then after that we will go to in detail article 64 and 65 and then once and due exposition is an area where there is lot of sub there are lot of branches see various principles are first is that it must be net ve net clam net ve, net clam, net precario it must be adequate in continuity in authority and in extent and see if there is a derivative title or some sort of a right it is a defendant claims for example a is the owner of the property a agreed to sell his property to b and b was put in possession of the property a did not file a suit for a specific performance b also did not file a suit more than 12 years over period of limitation is over what is the nature of possession of d he can claim of course part performance and all those but whether his possession will be adverse to a because he is claiming under a colour of 90 the principle is that however long or continuous the possession is that will not become adverse unless these ingredients are proved by the person who claims adverse possession will be deleted later now we will come back to section 27 and I will cite a few decisions which are relevant the most important decision I will cite today and I will cite when the particular topic of adverse possession is being discussed because that all for that purpose also this decision is very very important AER 2019 Supreme Court 2019 Supreme Court 3827 3827 Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others versus Manjit Kaur and others Manjit Kaur and others what is this importance of this decision with reference to section 27 I cite about adverse possession I cite about the principle that A is the title holder and B trespassed upon the property he acquired prescriptive title for adverse possession then A's title is extinguished in section 27 and that title to B B becomes the order then what is B's right B's possession is threatened by A what is A's right nothing because his right is lost so can B file a suit against A or a subsequent trespass or another person who pretends to dispossess B there is a decision of the Supreme Court two decisions of Supreme Court which say that the person who has perfected adverse possession by prescriptive title of adverse possession cannot file a suit for a declaration he can use the adverse possession only as a sword only as a shield and not as a sword that decision which was followed by another decision of Supreme Court created a lot of conclusion and that was set at rest by Ravinder Kaur Grewal's case so we will first see what was the decision of Supreme Court which created that difficulty Gurudwara Sahib's case again must be from Panjab I think Gurudwara Sahib versus Gram Panjab village Sirtala and another village Sirtala S-I-R-T-H-N-L citation is 2014 1 S-C-C 6 6 9 2 judges they said that paragraph 3 9 discussion is there we however find that this relief of declaration has been denied on the ground that the suit for such a prayer was not maintainable in as much as declaration to this effect on the base of adverse possession cannot be sought and the play of adverse possession is available only as a defense to the defense so it can be used only as a shield and not as a sword there is such a principle in the specific refact we are not dealing with that but same principle was adopted here this is in paragraph 3 so it was held and when a suit is filed by the owner of the property he can use it as a shield Supreme Court also said this decision was followed by the Supreme Court in a year 2017 Supreme Court 4472 4472 S-C-C citation 2079 S-C-C 579 State of Uttarakhand and Naranda versus Mandir Sri Lakshman Siddh Maharaj Mandir Sri Lakshman Siddh Maharaj Mandir Sri Lakshman Siddh Maharaj Mandir Sri Lakshman Siddh Maharaj Mandir Sri Lakshman Siddh Maharaj Gurudwara Sahib's case was followed in this statement by the Supreme Court and in paragraph 31 the discussion is there the courts below should have seen that no declaration of ownership rights over the suit property could be granted by the Supreme Court on the strength of Andhya's position see Gurudwara Sahib versus Kraman Jai village Siddh Maharaj so that was followed and the Supreme Court reiterated the evidence now what happened in Ravinder Kaur Grewal's case Supreme Court overruled these two judgments Gurudwara Sahib and the subsequent decision the Supreme Court held that the principle of Andhya's position has been discussed in great detail almost all the points in Andhya's position are covered by Ravinder Kaur Grewal's case and with respect to section 27 and with respect to whether the person who has perfected title by Andhya's position can use it as a sword by finding a suit this right title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within the gun of article 65 the facts was the question of love that came up for Bentefri Jaitres was whether article 65 the limitation act only enables a person to set up a plea of 100% as a shield by a defendant and such a plea can be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect his possession of the molotov tea or to recover it in the case of this person and the Supreme Court this bench consisting of three different deduces notice the different views taken by the various icons and also the Supreme Court decisions and held that law of limitation does not define the concept of Andhya's position nor anywhere contains a provision that the plaintiff cannot sue based on Andhya's position it only deals with the limitation to further down law of limitation that is paragraph 48 50 and 59 law of Andhya's position does not qualify only a defendant for acquisition of title by way of possession affected by a person who is filing a suit it only restricts a right of the owner to possession before the period of limitation fixed for an extension of the right it expires that is 27 once the right is extinguished another person acquires prescriptive right which cannot be defeated by reentry by the owner or a subsequent acknowledgement of his rights so A is the owner B trespassed upon B perfected title by Andhya's position with all the requirements then A's title goes to B and then while B acquired that prescriptive title and while he was in possession A tried to trespass upon A cannot do that and A can be injuncted A has already trespassed upon he can be evicted because A's title has been lost under section 2 A is not at all having any right is retreated in this supreme holdage once the right is extinguished another person acquires prescriptive right which cannot be defeated by reentry by the owner or a subsequent acknowledgement of right in such cases a suit can be filed by a person whose right is sought to be defeated a person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years period of undue possession is over even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner and the possessory owner acquires right title interest possessed by the outgoing person stroke owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed in our opinion consequences that once the right title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as a sheen by the defendant within the ken of article 65 of that and any person who has perfected title by owner's possession can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of this possession it is clearly him and then come back for the ingredients of undue possession any property in section 27 paragraph 55 any property in section 27 that expression issue would include corporeal and incorporeal property the expression title again in paragraph 54 the expression title occurring in article article 65 would include title acquired by plaintiff by owner's possession see article 65 says that it would for possession based on title that title includes a title acquired by a trespasser by owner's possession it is so made so clear in Ravinder Singh Draval Ravinder Kaur Draval so we will leave that decision now for the time being and we will come back again there is a decision of the Kerala High Court why it is relevant I am citing that Kerala two Kerala judges same judges one is ILR 2018 to Kerala ILR 2018 to Kerala 399 it is in Kerala High Court case also which is there 2018 1KHC 813 Kunye Krishnan TK versus state of Kerala versus state of Kerala this decision was rendered this decision I will cite one more Thomas versus Lonapal Thomas versus Lonapal 2016 5KHC Kerala High Court cases 2016 5KHC 562 and Kerala law time citation 2016 4KL 2016 4KL 637 what is the importance of these decisions these decisions were rendered before Ravinder Kaur Draval case was rendered by this court so at the time when this Lernand Dyerdje rendered these death facts what was in the field was Gurudwara Sahib case which held that a person who has prescribed title to his person can use it only as a shield and not as a soul but what was said in the Kerala decision is that this Gurudwara Sahib case is not binding because there is an earlier three bench decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary which is that decision of the Supreme Court which was followed in Ravinder Singh Draval's case Kerala Deva Periyam Atam Sharanga Deva Periyam Atam and other versus Ramaswamy Gouda AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1603 one more case Naira Service Society versus KC Alexander and others AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1968 Supreme Court 1165 these two decisions were followed by the Kerala in preference to Gurudwara Sahib case and it was held in paragraph 13 of Pune Krishnan case which was sent first Gurudwara Sahib's case cannot be relied on as a binding precedent in paragraph 13 why because Sharanga Deva Periyam Atam's case 1966 Supreme Court which was rendered by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court was to the contrary and therefore we have to follow the 66 Supreme Court decision in preference to Gurudwara Sahib's case then another decision another principle 2014 9 Supreme Court SEC 2014 9 SEC 185 AIR citation AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3447 Singh Ram Singh Ram through enlarge versus Shiora and others what is the position of a use of rectory on teaching article 61 says of the Limitation Act says period of limitations 30 years to file a suit to redeem or recover position this was 60 years under the 1908 act and 60 years period of limitations various articles was reduced to 30 years now under the Limitation Act 1963 the maximum period under any article is 30 years to redeem and recover position of immoral property engaged 30 years when the right to redeem or recover position occurs there is a wrong belief among us that after the expiry of 30 years a use of rectory mortgage are cannot redeem position redeem the mortgage say for example 1119 50 1119 we will take it 1119 17 is the date of mortgage mortgage was put in position use of rectory mortgage the use of rectory mortgage is entitled to appropriate the rents and profits and account it towards the principle or interest on both and 1170 is the date of execution of the use of rectory mortgage deal and we believe many of us believe that after the expiry of 30 years that is on 112000 after that date the suit is parked it is not 30 years is to be completed not from the date of execution the mortgage deal use of rectory mortgage but from the right to redeem when the right to redeem or recover position occurs so long as the mortgagee is in possession and he is given the right to appropriate the rents and profits towards the principle towards and to be appropriated and accounted towards the principle or interest on both of the mortgage then so long as that continues and the mortgage debt is not wiped off the mortgage continues and the mortgagee can be evicted within 30 years from the date mentioned in the third column of the schedule right to redeem or recover position occurs right to redeem or recover position occurs when the mortgagee is extended ends so that during the currency of the mortgage that period of visitation will not expire so the belief that on the expiry of 30 years the right to the mortgagee is lost is not correct is re-traded in this free court judgment in SIGRA a use of rectory mortgagee is not entitled to 5 days old for declaration that he has become an owner of nearly one expiry of 30 years he cannot file mortgagee cannot file I have perfectly he cannot say that he has perfected IT by address position after the expiry of 30 years he cannot say that he has become the owner paragraph 11 12 article 61 of the limitation act article 62 of the DPI I am sorry section 62 of the DPI sections 58 and 60 of the DPI are all discussed in paragraph 12 which is a log paragraph accordingly last sentence accordingly we uphold the view taken by the full banks that in case of use of rectory mortgage near expiry of a period of 30 years from the date of creation of the mortgage does not extinguish the right of the mortgagee under section 62 of the DPI act is clearly next is AER 1999 876 Bilochand current versus Basad Kumari and other particular case were on the facts of it it was held that address position is applied and article 65 it is interpreted now what is the nature of possession under section 27 what is the nature of operation of section 27 once the title is extinguished does it revive A is the title holder B is the trespasser B trespassed upon the property and perfected title by a dual with all the incidents of a dual and then we have seen that A sees to help become the owner and he lost his title and B became the title holder then section 27 operates then there will be a revival of this right was considered by the Kerala High Court by Justice Fatima B. and Pergy's Kalyan Fatima B. was the first lady's Supreme Court judge she held from Kerala that decision is ILR 1986-1 Kerala 1986-1 Kerala 34 no revival of right if right is extinguished under section 27 now these are the important decisions under section 27 now we go to address position what are the principles of address position the classical requirement of address position is that possession must be neck V NEC-VI that impossible that impossible neck V neck clam NEC-CLAM and neck precario NEC precario what is the meaning of it NEC-VI, NEC-CLAM, NEC precario it is there in Ravindra Ravindra Kaur Graeval speech what is the meaning of NEC-VI, NEC-CLAM, NEC precario NEC-VI adequate in continuity adequate in continuity NEC-CLAM adequate in publicity and NEC precario adverse to the competitor in denier of title and his knowledge this is discussed in paragraph 57 of Ravindra Kaur Graeval's case Ravindra Kaur Graeval's case so these are the requirements and address position is commenced in wrong there is another principle see when I am the owner of property you trespassed upon you did a wrong thing immorality and one Supreme Court judgment which says that adverse person is immoral and therefore it cannot be recognized by courts see wish but not a binding precedent as such but it is against the human rights what decision said these are all the developments of law adverse position is commenced in wrong and is aimed against the right so disputes with respect to adverse position must come to an end it cannot be in a suspended it cannot be in a confused state rights with respect to immoral property so there must be an owner there must be somebody responsible for it there must be somebody who is to protect the property, pay revenue and maintain all the records and follow the government rules and regulations and they possess the property there cannot be in no man's land with respect to movable property there can be no man's property but here in no man's land there must be an owner so adverse position is commenced in wrong and is aimed against right a person is said to hold the property adverse to the real owner when that person in denial of the owner's right excluded him from the enjoyment of the property then what is the nature of possession the ingredients of adverse position must be opened and without any attempted concealment without any attempted concealment it must be opened say I cannot have a secret animus to possess the property you are the owner of the property I am the neighbor I enter into the property when you are not there or when you do not see me and I say it is steal something and go back to the intention to possess I committed this nefarious activities for a period of 15 years or more but you are not aware of it the people are not aware of it the society does not know it it is my secret hostile animus that will not constitute adverse position open without any attempted concealment it is not necessary that you must be told that your property is being trespassed upon your property process can do it but it must be opened possession must be hostile actual open notorious exclusive and continuous continued further required to use what are the requirements hostile actual open notorious exclusive and continuous exercised from time to time would not be sufficient for the acquisition of high-definition see you are the owner of a Cochrane Garden I am the neighbor I steal Cochrane from your Cochrane Garden during night see I take 100 Cochrane like the Cochrane tree and pulled out something and clandestinely stealthily remove all the Cochrane you would not know you are sleeping nobody knows about it this is my secret hostile animus I continued this for 20 years or sporadic acts of possession with your knowledge I trespassed upon the property today came back retreated then I did not continue that these are all sporadic acts of possession that will not constitute adverse position adverse position depends on the intention of the occupant intention of the occupant to claim and hold the land in opposition to the whole world I am the owner he says the trespasser says assert that he is the owner assert that he is an exclusive person continue it for the required time possession implies dominion control and consciousness in the mind of the person having dominion as distinguished from occupation possession and adverse possession are not the same thing however long the possession may be there is a Supreme Court judgment which I will cite next time see there was a license A is the owner B was put in possession as a license see A terminated the license but he did not file a suit for possession B continued in possession then 12 years, 15 years over A files a suit then B says that he has perfected title by adverse possession Supreme Court said mere continuance of possession for over a length of time does not constitute adverse possession you are only a licensee you are continuing as a licensee even though the licensee is terminated your possession will not become independent and you have not shed the character as a licensee and started processing it adverse if that is so the possession is difficult so mere possession counting the number of years is not enough possession need not in all cases be actual physical possession constructive possession is enough for example property in the possession of tenants when both the plaintiff and the defendant are not in actual possession A is the owner of the property there are buildings in that property 10 persons are in possession as tenants and B trespassed upon the property we cannot hold it to possess actually but B threatened the tenants and B said that B is the owner and he started collecting rents from the tenants that continue to my knowledge to A's knowledge that is A is the owner A's knowledge for the required time B is said to have perfect entitled by adverse possession and though B was not in actual possession he was only constructive possession that is the only possession up to which he can have because the properties in the buildings are in the possession of tenants and he started collecting rent from the tenants though he was not the owner that is constructive possession that is enough for adverse possession mere continuance of unauthorized possession even for a period of 12 years he started up adverse possession against the co-owners ouster is also required see there are two brothers who wants a property we have to a father father died there are two children two brothers one is working abroad he comes to the native place only occasion his brother maintains the property takes the income from the property and he does not account the province as he is being done many of the two families he is the position there will be no accounting one person will swallow the whole thing but because of the relationship nobody will question that possession for 12 years or 15 years will not be sufficient for adverse possession so one of the brothers suppose 10 brothers are having rights they are co-owners and 9 of them are away one is in possession that possession of one is the possession of the rest of 9 also it is affordable to their possession but if there is ouster that means the other 9 persons are ousted they were told they were put to knowledge that this remaining one person who is in actual possession is possessing it adversely to all others asserting his own right to the exclusion of others then that constitutes ouster so as between strangers and as between brothers co-owners possession is different co-owners apart from all the group of all the other ingredients ouster must also be put permissive possession does not constitute a dualist possession what is permissive possession I said the next example there was an agreement for sale the purchaser was put in possession his possession is permissive or a tenant his possession is permissive that possession however long it was will not constitute a dualist possession that possession is never considered a dualist if it is referable to a valid a lawful type these are some of the principles we will discuss it and refer to the decisions of supreme court mainly next time because it is 675 I think today if we start that it will not be over and it will be half way through next time thank you the way you meticulously plan things that how it has to end up at that particular time that's quite amazing this is by Selvakumar can I claim adverse possession rights before DRT court between ModGager and ModGager bank ModGager and ModGager ModGager's possession is referable to the ModGager and therefore so long as he is the ModGager he cannot claim a dualist possession okay yeah no that was the only question so thank you friends for joining us happy teachers day once again for those first persons who have joined us on this platform time and again the journey has been for more than one and a half year but it couldn't have been possible until always we could have got those resource persons who could have explained the things elicitedly and that too without any underlying objective but the objective was payback to the society just like what Justice KT Sankaran is doing despite the fact that he has his own channel of Justice KT Sankaran showing on the portable procedure and limitation act but still in his own magnum space he has been always kind enough to share his knowledge we will take the part 2 I will talk to sir later on regarding the time and scheduled we will post it on the whatsapp groups as well as on the social media so everyone stay safe stay blessed and thank you sir happy teachers day let us come if you can do it A and B brothers divided property subsequently a will comes into light with showing C only in title to take property then what is the limitation C there is a will C got the rights A and B does not have title they partitioned the property that does not bind C so long as C is not ousted and the required ingredients of a doers person prove C is right under the will will not be lost C can file a suit C can because C is the exclusive owner on the basis of the will he will try to show the cause of action from the date of knowledge or how does he show that is his query see if the will is not known to him then existence of the will is not known to him he can say that he came to know of the will later that was not known to him see that is the principle of section 17 of the limitation fraud, mistake not knowing etc see came to know of the existence of the will later and therefore time starts from there thank you sir see you