Proof of – To claim ownership on basis of adverse possession, one has to prove the point of time from which it had become adverse and as to how hostile title was claimed to the knowledge of the owner. 2002 SCMR 300
Possession of a widow over a property after her marriage for more than twelve years would not ipso facto convert into adverse possession unless it was established that she had openly denounced title of rightful owner-Mere possession for any length of time would not mature into title-In absence of evidence on record not satisfying ingredients of adverse possession, findings of Courts that widow was in exclusive and uninterrupted possession, was not sustainable. 2002 M L D 1106
Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Dr. Mir Haider v. Muhammad Ali 14 PR 1911; Tarif and others v. Phool Singh and others AIR 1927 All. 274; Desa and others v. Dani and others AIR 1929 Lah. 327; Harisingh Hiralal Dangi v. Ramchandra Takhat Singh Dangi and another AIR 1957 Mahh, Pra. 238; Darmu Bharati and others v. Buli Dei and others AIR 1964 Orissa 25; F.A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan PLD 1964. SC 520 and Mst. Karim Jan and 3 others v. Anwar Khan and another PLD 1984 Pesh. 111 ref.
Person asserting ownership over a property by purchase would not be legally justified at the same time to say that his occupation was hostile or adverse as against its real owner—Logic behind was that a person could not claim both hostile and adverse possession over a property, which he held in his own right. PLD 2002 S.C581
Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Subhan 1999 SCMR 1245; Khuda Bakhsh v. Mureed 1999 SCMR 996; Ghulam Qadir v. Ahmed Yar PLD 1990 SC 1049 and Mirza Ghulam Hussain v. Ch. Iqbal Ahmad PLD 1991 SC 290 ref.
Pleas of lawful title and adverse possession in same case are contradictory pleas and cannot stand together. By raising such contradictory pleas, party had not perfected its title by way of adverse possession which plea was not available to it as an alterative plea along witch plea that it had purchased suit land, being a benamidar. Person who asserts ownership over a certain property by purchase would not be legally justified at same time to say that his occupation of the property was hostile or adverse as against real owner. Logic behind is that a person cannot claim hostile and adverse possession over a property which he holds in his own rights and such a possession lacks essentials of adverse possessions so far recognized for maturity of ownership on this count. Possession is not to be considered adverse if its origin can be referred to a lawful title, whenever that is possible, because, a person who claims to have entered into possession as a trespasser will be presumed not be have done so if at the time he so entered, -he had some lawful title of possession. This in reality is based on historical and jurisprudential aspects of adverse possession. A defendant entering into possession or being in possession on assumption of lawful title could not divest himself of that title “by pretending that he had no title at all. Possession was never adverse if it could be referred to a lawful title. It has to be kept in view that one of the most important elements in deciding whether possession is or is not adverse, is intention and knowledge of both sides. They have a decisive determining effect. It always depends upon intention at start. If origin of possession is treated by person subsequently claiming to be in adverse possession as lawful, no adverse possession begins until denial to knowledge of owner. After a fair fight on the basis of lawful title if that claim is given up as caving finally failed, from that point .of time onward the adverse possession, if other conditions are satisfied, could start. PLJ 1999 SO 1840 = 1999 SCMR 996.
Pleas of adverse possession and title by way of gift being contradictory were irreconcilable. PLD 2002 S.C581