There must be immovable or movable property.
The nature of possession must be visible, hostile, and in continuity without any intrusion for the period specified under the Limitation Act.
Adverse possession cannot be claimed for a short period of time under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
The intention of possession of the land must be accompanied by the intention of owning the right of the ownership by such possession. In Bhimrao Dnyanoba Patil Vs State of Maharashtra [iii] , 2003, the court held that, unless enjoyment of the property is accompanied by adverse animus, mere possession for a long period even over a statutory period, would not be sufficient to mature the title to the property by adverse possession.
When a person comes and captures a land for a specific period of time he is taking away the ownership from the rightful owner. Thus there should be dispossession of ownership by adverse possession.
However, dispossession of the true owner will not take place when the owner of the land or premise permits someone to stay on the land for how long they want, out of charity or other reasons. For instance, when the owner of a premise allows his servant to stay in a cottage without paying any rent than in this case servant cannot claim his title over the land as the owner himself allows him to stay as long he is providing his service to him.
The other scenario is when land is not in use and someone who is not the owner of the land tries to claim his right of ownership without having been in physical occupier of the land. For instance, A person is claiming over the property of person B, but he was not physically occupying it, so in this case, he cannot claim it because A was not physically staying there. In these two scenarios, the dispossession of the true owner cannot be done.