Is payment of Kist and long possession for more than the statutory period sufficient to constitute adverse possession?

No. Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the original Title Deed and mere long possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder, and the limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly. The person claiming adverse possession must also prove the date of entering into possession, the nature of possession, how long he is in possession, whether the factum of possession was known to the real owners and that his possession was open and undisturbed; long possession by itself would not be sufficient, and animus possidendi against the true owner is also necessary.

Adverse possession — Limitation — Declaration of title and permanent injunction — Inconsistent plea of title under an unregistered sale deed — Animus possidendi — Denial of title to the knowledge of the title holder — Adverse possession — Title under an unregistered sale deed — Inconsistent plea — Held: A claim of title under an unregistered sale deed and a claim by adverse possession cannot go together, since it leads to an inconsistent stand. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case based on pleadings and evidences. (¶15, 16) Adverse possession — Essential pleadings and proof — Held further: A person claiming adverse possession must prove the date of entering into possession, its nature, how long he is in possession and whether it was known to the real owners. His possession must be open and undisturbed. (¶18, 19, 20) Adverse possession — Revenue records, Kist and custody of title deed — Not sufficient by themselves — Held further: Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the Title Deed and long possession for more than the statutory period are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder. (¶21) Adverse possession — Limitation — Denial of title conveyed to the real owner — Held further: The limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly. The plaintiff having failed to prove that he perfected title by adverse possession, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. (¶21, 22, 23)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of K. Chenrayan v. K. Raja — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India