AIR 1999 DELHI 281 ::1999 (3) ADDel 32 ::(2000) 2 CivLJ 581 ::1999 (3) CivilCourtC 49 ::1999 (2) RecCivR 685 ::1999 (50) DRJ 232 ::1999 (1) RenCR 566 ::(1999) 2 RentLR 183 ::2000 (2) CurCC 181

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Mohd. Shamim , J

(A) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.65— Adverse possession - Person claiming himself to be owner in possession over disputed property on ground that he had purchased the same from vendor - Alternative plea of adverse possession against said vendor by such claimant - Cannot be allowed. Where in a suit for possession of property, the defendant claimed himself to be the owner in possession over disputed property on the ground that he had purchased the same from the plaintiff, the alternative plea by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession cannot be allowed. A person who traces his possession to a lawful title can never become an owner by adverse possession. Admittedly, adverse possession means a hostile assertion which is expressly and impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Thus the defendants cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The mere fact that the defendants have come forward with a plea of adverse possession, means that they admit the plaintiff to be the true owner. For a plea of ownership on the basis of adverse possession the first and the foremost condition is that the property must belong to someone else other than the person pleading his title on the basis of adverse possession, such defences would be irreconcilable and mutually destructive and inconsistent with one another. It was mo....