# Adverse Possession Needs a Hostile Date: Supreme Court

By Saurabh Garg, founder·8 min read·Published 2026-09-11
**Short answer:** On 10 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that a person claiming land by adverse possession has to plead and prove the point at which their possession became hostile to the owner, and that until they do, the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot even begin to run. Long occupation and revenue entries prove possession, not title. The case is Bhag Singh (D) thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) thr. LRs. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2016, 2026 INSC 983, marked reportable.

# Decades on Your Land Do Not Make Someone Its Owner

**On 10 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that a person claiming your land by adverse possession has to plead and prove the date their possession turned hostile to you. Until they do, the limitation period does not start. Long occupation proves occupation, and a revenue entry proves possession. Neither proves title.**

The case is *Bhag Singh (D) thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) thr. LRs. and Others*, Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2016, neutral citation 2026 INSC 983, decided on 10 September 2026. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra wrote the judgment, sitting with Justice Shree Chandrashekhar. The Court marks it reportable.

## What happened

The land is 4 Kanals 18 Marlas of farmland in the revenue estate of Muktsar, Punjab. The plaintiffs claimed it under a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1965, executed by Gajjan Singh and Baggu Singh. The revenue records went on showing Attar Singh Chela Bhai Gulab Singh in possession, although he had died close to twenty years before the suit.

The defendants represented Dera Bhai Mastan Singh, a religious institution. Their case was that the land had been dedicated to the Dera for Dharam-Arth, religious and charitable purposes, long before 1965. The Jamabandi for 1945-46 recorded Attar Singh in possession as "gair marusi bila lagan bawaja Dharam Arth", which the judgment reads as possession without payment of rent for religious purposes. The Dera said its successive Mahants had held the land for decades, so it owned the land by dedication and, in any event, by adverse possession. It also said the two sellers owned a half share, with the other half belonging to Pritam Singh.

The suit was filed in 1981. The trial court dismissed it on 22 January 1983, and the first appellate court at Faridkot agreed on 25 January 1985. Both leaned on the revenue entries. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed them in second appeal on 22 March 2011 and decreed the suit. The Supreme Court has dismissed the Dera's appeal and affirmed that decree, forty-five years after the suit was filed.

## What the Court held

On revenue records: Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris are relevant to possession, but they "neither create nor extinguish title, nor can they, by themselves, constitute conclusive evidence of ownership." They are "admissible as evidence of possession, but they do not confer title to immovable property."

On the date possession turned hostile: Neither the Dera's pleadings nor its evidence showed when its possession became hostile to the owners, and there was no evidence of any "overt act by which such hostility was asserted to the knowledge of the true owners." The Court said those missing pleadings are "not a mere technical defect", and held: "Unless the commencement of hostile possession is pleaded and proved, the statutory period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot even begin to run."

On long possession: "The doctrine of adverse possession does not reward longevity of occupation alone." Restating its earlier ruling in *T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa*, the Court said possession that can be traced to a lawful or permissive origin does not turn adverse with the passing of years. The Dera's own case was that Attar Singh came into possession as its Mahant, for religious purposes. On that account, the possession never began as hostile to the recorded owners.

On running two stories at once: The Dera claimed the land was dedicated to it and, in the alternative, that it had perfected title by adverse possession. The Court held the two do not fit together. Adverse possession assumes the title first sat with someone else and was lost to hostile possession, and a completed dedication says the title had already passed. The lower courts accepted both, and the Court found that reasoning inconsistent.

On who proves what: The burden of proving dedication or adverse possession stayed on the Dera throughout. Pointing at a flaw in the plaintiffs' deed did not shift it, because "each party must succeed on the strength of its own title and not on the weakness of the opponent's case."

The judgment carries two limits. The Court accepted that "a transferor cannot convey a better title than what he himself possesses", and said its ruling does not mean the plaintiffs proved an indefeasible title to the whole property. How much the 1965 deed conveyed is a separate question from whether the Dera owned the land. The Court also clarified that the Dharam Arth entry is "neither conclusive proof of a completed dedication nor conclusive proof of permissive possession." A revenue entry is evidence, weighed with everything else on the record.

On procedure, the Court held the High Court was entitled to overturn two concurrent findings in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because those findings rested on a misapplication of settled law and not on a different reading of the evidence.

## What it means if you own from abroad

It follows *Jamnabai*, decided on 20 August 2026, where the Court said a mutation entry cannot take a co-owner's title. We covered it in [your name off the revenue record does not take your title with it](/guides/nri-mutation-does-not-extinguish-title-supreme-court-sep-2026). *Jamnabai* was about a relative inside the family. *Bhag Singh* is about an outsider holding the land for decades.

Three points follow for an owner who is not on the ground.

The occupier carries the burden. Someone who has lived on or farmed your land for thirty years has to show when they began holding it against you, and show that it happened to your knowledge. Years alone do not do it.

How the occupation began matters. The Court looked at the origin of the Dera's possession and found that, on the Dera's own case, it did not begin as hostile. For an owner abroad, the arrangements that start this way are familiar: the caretaker, the relative you let stay, the family that farms the plot. What decides the case is what the record shows about how that possession began.

Your own title still has to stand. The occupier cannot win by finding holes in your deed, and you do not win by finding holes in their claim. The plaintiffs here had a registered sale deed from 1965, and the Court still treated how much of the land it conveyed as a separate question.

## What to do

The steps that keep an occupation permissive, and the paper that dates it, are in our guide to [protecting vacant property from encroachment](/guides/protecting-vacant-property-encroachment-nri). If someone is already in, [what to do about an encroachment](/guides/encroachment-nri-property-india-what-to-do) sets out the time limits for each remedy. Pull your certified revenue record on a schedule and keep every dated copy, following [khata and mutation for a remote owner](/guides/khata-mutation-remote-owner).

## FAQ

**A family has farmed my land in India for thirty years. Do they own it now?**
Not on the length of occupation alone. On 10 September 2026 the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of adverse possession "does not reward longevity of occupation alone", and that the person claiming it has to plead and prove when the possession became hostile to the owner. Your position turns on your own facts and records.

**Does a revenue record showing someone else in possession mean they own my land?**
No. In *Bhag Singh v. Basant Kaur*, 2026 INSC 983, the Court restated that revenue records such as Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris are evidence of possession and neither create nor extinguish title.

**If there is a flaw in my sale deed, does the occupier win?**
Not for that reason. The Court held that each party must succeed on the strength of its own title, and that the burden of proving dedication or adverse possession stayed with the side claiming it. A flaw can still limit how much you own: the Court accepted that sellers cannot convey a better title than they hold, and treated the extent of the deed as a separate question.

**Can someone claim my land was dedicated or gifted to them and also claim adverse possession?**
They can plead both, but the Court held the two rest on different legal premises. Adverse possession assumes the title sat with the owner and was lost to hostile possession, while a completed dedication says it had already passed. The lower courts in this case accepted both together, and the Supreme Court found that inconsistent.

**Does this ruling change the limitation period itself?**
No. The judgment refers to the statutory period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 and does not alter it. What it holds is that the period does not begin to run until the start of hostile possession is pleaded and proved. The periods and the remedies that go with them are in our guide to [what to do about an encroachment](/guides/encroachment-nri-property-india-what-to-do).

*66 MG Road newsdesk*

## Sources

- Judgment, *Bhag Singh (D) thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) thr. LRs. and Others*, Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2016, 2026 INSC 983, 10 September 2026, reportable, signed PDF from the Supreme Court of India's latest judgments list, read in full on 11 September 2026: [https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=173942012&type=j&order_date=2026-09-10&from=latest_judgements_order](https://www.sci.gov.in/sci-get-pdf/?diary_no=173942012&type=j&order_date=2026-09-10&from=latest_judgements_order)

About the author: [Saurabh Garg](/about)

Saurabh Garg has run the venture studio C4E for twenty years. He founded 66 MG Road in 2026, reads every proposal request, and replies within one business day.

[saurabhgarg.com](https://saurabhgarg.com) · [@saurabh](https://x.com/saurabh) · [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/saurabhgarg)

Information on this page is as on 2026-09-11. Rules, rates, deadlines and government portals change without notice, so verify against the official source before you act. This page is for information only. It is not tax or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a qualified adviser who knows your position.

## Related guides

- [How to Protect Vacant Property in India from Encroachment: The Prevention Checklist](/guides/protecting-vacant-property-encroachment-nri)
- [Encroachment on NRI Property in India: What to Do in the First Week](/guides/encroachment-nri-property-india-what-to-do)
- [Your Name Off the Revenue Record Does Not Take Your Title With It](/guides/nri-mutation-does-not-extinguish-title-supreme-court-sep-2026)
- [Khata, Mutation, and Title Clean-up for Remote Owners: Why a Pending Record Blocks Your Sale](/guides/khata-mutation-remote-owner)

## Compare and cost

- [The NRI Property Management Companies in India: A Comparison You Can Check](/guides/best-nri-property-management-companies-india)
- [What NRI Property Management Costs in India: The Four Models and What Hides in Each](/guides/nri-property-management-cost-india)
- [NoBroker NRI Services Review: What the Pages Promise and What They Leave Out](/guides/nobroker-nri-services-review)

---

Source: [https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-adverse-possession-hostile-date-supreme-court-sep-2026](https://66mgroad.com/guides/nri-adverse-possession-hostile-date-supreme-court-sep-2026) · 66 MG Road. Full LLM brief: https://66mgroad.com/llms.txt