Adverse possession over granted land requires strict proof of hostile title and continuous possession; mere long occupation is insufficient.

A transferee of granted land cannot perfect title by adverse possession unless it specifically pleads and proves disclaimer of derivative title, hostile assertion to the knowledge of the true owner, and open, continuous, uninterrupted possession with the requisite animus. Mere long possession after purchase is insufficient. The protective scheme of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and the statutory presumption under Section 5(3) operated against the transferees, and they failed to rebut it. Because the alienation was contrary to the conditions of grant and no valid title could be perfected against the State, the adverse possession claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had perfected title to granted lands by adverse possession so as to defeat proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

Analysis: The lands had been purchased from the original grantees and the transfers were contrary to the conditions of grant and the protective scheme of the Act. A claim of adverse possession required clear pleadings and proof that the possessor had disclaimed the derivative title, asserted hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner, and remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession with the necessary animus. Mere long possession after purchase was insufficient. The appellants had not pleaded or proved the crucial facts constituting adverse possession. The statutory presumption under Section 5(3) of the Act also operated against a person in possession other than the original grantee or legal heir, and the appellants failed to rebut it. The Court further noted that the grant was subject to restrictive conditions and the alienation was hit by the Act, leaving no valid title in the transferees capable of being perfected against the State.

Conclusion: The claim of adverse possession was rejected and the appellants could not avoid the operation of the Act; the finding was against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee of granted land claiming adverse possession against the State must specifically plead and prove disclaimer of derivative title, hostile assertion of title, and continuous open possession to the knowledge of the State; absent such pleading and proof, title cannot be perfected by adverse possession.

---