Adverse Possession: The "End of the Road" for Tenants
Jyoti Sharma v. Vishnu Goyal 2025 INSC 1099
Special Leave Petition (C) No.29500 of 2024
The Summary
In a historic ruling, the Apex Court has definitively closed the door on tenants claiming ownership through Adverse Possession. The Court held that since a tenant enters a property through "permissive possession" (a rent deed or oral agreement), that possession can never become hostile to the owner, regardless of whether the tenant has occupied the premises for 10 or 70 years.
For decades, we fought the "Limitation Battle" where tenants would stop paying rent and then, after 12 years, claim title. This judgment is a masterstroke for landlords.
The Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principle of "Once a Tenant, Always a Tenant." To claim adverse possession, the tenant must first "surrender" the possession and then re-enter with a hostile intent, which is practically impossible in most litigation scenarios.
Strategic Impact: In our current eviction suits, we now move for Summary Judgment if the defendant attempts an adverse possession plea. It is no longer a "triable issue" that requires a 5-year evidentiary phase; it can be struck down at the threshold.
The Burden of Proof: The burden has shifted heavily. The occupant must now prove the exact date the possession became adverse—not just when they stopped paying rent.
II. Real Estate Regulation: The RERA vs. IBC Supremacy
Case Citation: Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma (Supreme Court, November 2025)
The Summary
The Court has introduced the "Speculative Investor Test" to resolve the conflict between the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). It ruled that while genuine homebuyers are "Financial Creditors," those who entered into agreements with "Assured Returns" or "Buy-back Clauses" are speculative investors and cannot trigger the IBC to push a developer into insolvency.
This is a critical course-correction. We frequently saw "investors" using the IBC as a recovery tool, often stalling projects that were 90% complete, to the detriment of 500 other families.
The New Litmus Test: When representing developers or genuine buyers, we now scrutinize the "Agreement to Sell." If it reads more like a "Loan Agreement" (with fixed interest instead of a possession date), we challenge the maintainability of the insolvency petition.
Primacy of RERA: The Court has reaffirmed that RERA is the primary forum for project completion. The IBC is a "remedy of last resort."
III. The Finality of Partition Suits
Case Citation: Branch of Tukru Gope v. Branch of Palat Gope (Supreme Court, December 2025)
The Summary
The Supreme Court has barred the "Re-opening of Settled Partitions." It held that if a family has once acknowledged a division—even through an unregistered document or a "Memorandum of Family Settlement"—a fresh suit for partition decades later is barred by the principles of Estoppel and Finality.
Partition suits are the "undying embers" of Indian litigation.
The "Registered vs. Unregistered" Debate: While Section 17 of the Registration Act usually requires partition deeds to be registered, the 2025 ruling emphasizes the "Conduct of Parties." If the parties have lived separately, dealt with properties independently, or paid taxes separately for years, the court will "presume" a partition has occurred.
Litigation Strategy: In our defense of ancestral property, we now focus on gathering "Collateral Evidence" (mutation records, separate electricity meters, or old mortgage deeds) to prove an "Oral Partition" took place decades ago, thereby killing the new suit at the preliminary stage.
IV. Specific Performance & Third-Party Rights
Case Citation: Rajnish Bhardwaj v. Renu Woodbridge (Delhi High Court, October 2025)
The Summary
The Court ruled that even in the case of an Unregistered Agreement to Sell, if the buyer has paid a substantial earnest amount, the seller cannot create "Third-Party Rights" (sell to someone else) while the suit is pending.
This reinforces Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC.
Preserving the Subject Matter: Often, sellers try to frustrate a buyer by selling the property to a "Bona Fide Purchaser" during the trial. We now use this 2025 precedent to get an Immediate Injunction, arguing that "monetary compensation" (refunding double the earnest money) is not an adequate remedy for the loss of unique immovable property.