P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v Revamma (2007)

CPC & Limitation Act · Adverse Possession, Extinguishment of Right (s.27) & Distinction from Estoppel

Facts.

A claim of adverse possession turned on whether the possession was truly hostile and open, or merely long-continued occupation.

Issue.

What is the nature of possession required before it can be called “adverse” and mature into title?

Held.

The possession must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario — without force, without secrecy, and without the owner’s permission — coupled with a clear animus to hold against the true owner; mere long possession is not enough.

Why it matters.

Spells out the quality of possession demanded by s.27 / Article 65 (Topic 7), complementing the pleading rule in Karnataka Board of Wakf.

📄 Full CPC & Limitation Act notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All CPC & Limitation Act topics