In the present case, the Plaintiff/Appellant failed to prove the actual owner of the property against whom the claim of the adverse possession was filed. It is to be noted that the adverse possession of the Plaintiff was not known to the actual owner of the property. However, the Defendant/Respondent opposed the Plaintiffs claims and sought his dispossession from the property stating that they had purchased the property from the persons upon whom the property is devolved based on the settlement deed after the death of the original owner.

The Trial Court and High Court found out that the case of the Plaintiff/Appellant to claim ownership based on adverse possession was not sufficiently proved. Aggrieved by this decision, the Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Whether the claim for benefit of the adverse possession of the property is maintainable even if there is a failure to disclose the material averments in the plaint in order to prove his adverse possession on the property?

The Court observed that “The High Court held that the plaintiff could not establish that his adverse possession commenced from a particular date. The Trial Court and High Court rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his plea of adverse possession. In fact, as stated earlier, there was no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plant itself. Therefore, the suit for declaration of ownership by the plaintiff must fail.”

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek ownership over the property based on the claim of an adverse possession if he fails to prove-

• Who was the actual owner of the property
• An uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years was in the original owner's knowledge

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.