Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession and Revenue Entries Do Not Prove Title: Supreme Court Rejects Dera's Claim

The plaintiffs sued in 1981 for a declaration of ownership of 4 kanals 18 marlas, relying on a registered sale deed of 13.05.1965 (para 3). The Dera's Mahants claimed the land had long been dedicated to it for Dharam-Arth, citing revenue entries recording Attar Singh in possession "gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth", and alternatively claimed adverse possession (para 4). The trial and first appellate courts dismissed the suit (paras 5-9), but in second appeal the High Court decreed it on 22.03.2011 (paras 10-11).

The Court distinguished proof of possession from proof of title: revenue records are relevant to possession but neither create nor extinguish title, relying on Suraj Bhan and Vadiyala Prabhakar Rao (para 23). The party asserting dedication must prove the owner's clear intention to divest himself, and the Dera's alternative pleas of dedication and adverse possession rested on contradictory premises (paras 25-26). Applying T. Anjanappa, adverse possession requires actual, open, continuous and hostile possession; mere long possession is not enough (paras 28, 31). The Dera's own case was that possession began for religious purposes, a permissive origin, and nothing showed when it became hostile (paras 29-30). Though the vendors held only a half share, rival claimants must succeed on the strength of their own title (paras 36-37). The High Court rightly interfered under Section 100, as the concurrent findings misapplied settled law (paras 39-41).