The plea of adverse possession being essentially a plea based on facts, it was required to be proved by the party raising it on the basis of proper pleadings and evidence. The burden to prove such plea was, therefore, on the defendant who had raised it. It was, therefore, necessary for him to have discharged the burden that laid on him in accordance with law. .....Dagadabai =VS= Abbas, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 14] ....View Full Judgment

Adverse possession refers to one person’s occupation of land which is inconsistent with the right of another who claims to be the true owner. “Adverse possession” designates a possession in opposition to the true title and real owner and implies that it commenced in wrong and is maintained against right. ….. ( Alexander Vs. Polk, 39 Miss. 75 )
For adverse posses¬sion the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It is not necessary that adverse possession should be shown to have been brought to the knowledge of the competitor and that it is sufficient that the possession is overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the person against whom time is running out, if he exercises due vigilance, to be aware of what is happening. ….. ( Abdus Sattar Vs. Abdul Rahman, 44 DLR (AD) 100 )
Hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner. Such possession must be actual and exclusive under a claim of right, adequate in quantity, in publicity and in extent, so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. Such possession in denial of the title of the true owner must be peaceable, open and continuous. It must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known to the party interested. ….. ( Hazera Begum Vs. Roushan Ara Begum, (1987) 39 DLR (AD) 22 )

Adverse possession–
A monthly tenant cannot claim adverse possession for his rented premises for completing twelve years continuous possession– Possession of a monthly Varatia (tenant) cannot be constituted as acquisition of adverse possession. Defendant Nos.1-5 have neither filed any suit in respect of acquisition of adverse possession nor any suit for specific performance. It is settled proposition that time is the essence of contract. But after expiry of long time, defendant Nos.1-5 made no attempt to obtain a decree for specific performance. Thus, defendant Nos.1-5 are being in possession of the suit premises without having any title. The Appellate Court termed it as a monthly tenant as has been alleged by the appellant and we also hold the view that on the basis of such type of possession, there is no scope to acquire the statutory title like adverse possession. The appeal is dismissed without, any order as to costs. ...Mohammad Abdul Haque Chowdhury=VS=Mohammad Abed Ali Khan, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 133] ....View Full Judgment