A is in adverse possession of property since 1990. In 2004, A assigns his rights to B and puts B into possession. In 2008, C (registered owner) institutes suit for possession against B. B sets up plea of suit being barred by time for reason of A having been in adverse possession since 1990. C contends that B having come into possession in 2004 only, suit is within time. Decide.

B’s plea succeeds only if A’s adverse possession from 1990 can be tacked on to B’s possession after 2004. On these facts, the stronger view is that C’s suit in 2008 is within time unless B proves that he continued A’s hostile possession as A’s successor without any break and for the full statutory period; otherwise, B cannot defeat C by merely pointing to A’s earlier possession.

Governing rule

A suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which allows twelve years from the date when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Section 27 then extinguishes the owner’s right only after the prescribed period has fully run against the true owner. The burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession with precision, continuity, publicity, and hostility.

The important point is that adverse possession is not presumed. The person relying on it must show when the possession became adverse, how it remained adverse, and that it continued for twelve years in that character.

Effect of assignment

A person who acquires possession from an adverse possessor can rely on the predecessor’s possession only if there is privity and the adverse possession continued without interruption. But a transferee cannot automatically add the prior possessor’s time unless the predecessor’s adverse possession had already ripened or the transferee clearly stepped into the predecessor’s hostile possession. The law looks to the date when possession became adverse to the plaintiff, not merely to the date when the transferee entered.

Here, A was in adverse possession from 1990 and transferred his “rights” to B in 2004, putting B into possession. If A’s possession had already become adverse in 1990 and remained so till 2004, B can in principle tack that period to his own, because the possession is treated as one continuous hostile possession. In that case, by 2008, a total of eighteen years would have elapsed since 1990, and C’s suit would be barred.

But the better answer depends on whether A’s possession was truly adverse for the whole period and whether B’s possession continued that same hostile character. If the assignment was merely a transfer of a squatter’s occupation without proof of continuous adverse animus, B cannot rely on A’s earlier period as a matter of course. Courts insist on clear pleading and proof of the exact starting point of adverse possession.

Application to facts

If A’s possession from 1990 to 2004 was open, hostile, exclusive, and uninterrupted, and B continued that same possession after assignment, then the limitation period would have begun in 1990 and expired in 2002. C’s suit filed in 2008 would then clearly be barred. The assignment in 2004 would not revive C’s title after it had already been extinguished by twelve years of adverse possession.

If, however, A’s adverse possession is not properly proved, or if there was any break or ambiguity in the hostile character of possession when B entered, then C’s contention that the suit is within time becomes stronger. In such a case, B cannot succeed by a vague assertion that A had been in possession since 1990; he must prove the entire chain of adverse possession.

Illustrations

1. A trespasses in 1990 and remains in open hostile possession till 2004, then transfers possession to B, who continues till 2008. If the hostile possession is proved throughout, C’s suit is barred because twelve years had already run long before 2008.

2. A occupies the land from 1990, but the evidence does not show clear hostility to C, and B starts asserting possession only from 2004. Then only B’s period counts, and a suit in 2008 is within twelve years.

3. A’s possession is adverse, but after assignment B occupies in a permissive or uncertain manner. The chain breaks, and B cannot tack A’s earlier period to defeat C.

Case law

In Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi, the Supreme Court held that adverse possession must be open and without concealment, though actual notice to the true owner is not always necessary. In SM Karim v. Bibi Sakina, the Supreme Court said that adverse possession must be adequately pleaded and proved, with the starting point clearly shown. In Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma, the Court reaffirmed that the person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and must strictly prove all ingredients.

The commentary also notes that the defendant claiming adverse possession must establish continuous possession for the full statutory period and that mere long possession is not enough. Where possession is transferred from one adverse possessor to another, the continuity must be proved with clarity; otherwise, the plea fails.

Conclusion

If A’s adverse possession from 1990 to 2004 is strictly proved and B continued the same hostile possession after the assignment, C’s 2008 suit is barred by limitation. If that continuity or hostility is not proved, B cannot rely on A’s earlier occupation and C’s suit will be within time. On the stated facts, the decisive issue is proof of uninterrupted adverse possession from 1990; without such proof, C succeeds.