ARBITRATION SIMULATION SCRIPT – LAND OWNERSHIP DISPUTE (TWO

ARBITRATORS)
Title: Ms. Kavana v. Ms. Riya – Ownership and Possession of 6 Acres of Farmland
Venue: BIMACC
Panel: Arbitrator A (Lead), Arbitrator B
Parties:
• Claimant: Ms. Kavana (Legal owner, currently residing abroad)
• Claimant’s Counsel
• Respondent: Ms. Riya (Possessor, claims equitable rights)
• Respondent’s Counsel

Total Duration: 40 Minutes

Segment Activity Duration
1 Opening by Arbitrators 3 min
2 Opening Statements by Parties 6 min
3 Background Narration & Timeline 3 min
4 Submission & Explanation of Evidence 4 min
5 Cross-Examinations (Both Sides) 10 min
6 Arbitrators’ Clarifications 5 min
7 Negotiation Attempt Between Parties 4 min
8 Closing Arguments 3 min
9 Arbitral Award 2 min

1. Opening by Arbitrators (3 min)

Arbitrator A (Vidhya):
Good morning. I am Vidhya, and this is Lohan. We serve as the arbitral panel in this matter
concerning ownership and possession of 6 acres of farmland located in Karnataka.
Arbitrator B (Lohan):
This proceeding is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the BIMACC
procedural rules. We remind all parties to maintain decorum. Our goal is to deliver a fair,
reasoned, and binding award after due consideration.
Arbitrator A:
We will proceed in the following sequence: opening statements, background facts, evidence,
cross-examinations, clarifications, optional conciliation efforts, closing submissions, and final
award.

2. Opening Statements by Parties (6 min total; 3 min each)

Claimant (Ms. Kavana):
I purchased this land 20 years ago and entrusted my late father with its care while I moved
abroad. I was recently informed that Ms. Riya has been claiming ownership and developed it
without my consent. I never gave up ownership.
Claimant’s Counsel:
We assert:
• Legal ownership rests with the Claimant (Title Deed – C2).
• Possession was permissive via the Claimant’s late father.
• No formal title transfer, no gift, nor sale occurred.
• Respondent’s occupation cannot meet the legal threshold for adverse possession.

Respondent (Ms. Riya):

I was entrusted the land directly by the Claimant’s father. Over 18 years, I’ve transformed the
barren field into productive farmland. I’ve taken loans, built infrastructure, and sustained my
family. No one objected until recently.
Respondent’s Counsel:
Our position:
• Possession was continuous, open, and hostile.
• Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, we qualify for adverse possession.
• Alternatively, Respondent deserves equitable compensation for her improvements.

3. Background Narration & Timeline (3 min)

Arbitrator B:
For clarity, let us acknowledge this timeline:
• 2003: Ms. Kavana’s father buys land, moves to the UK. The property is vested in the
name of Ms. Kavana
• 2004: Her father allows Ms. Riya to farm the land.
• 2004–2022: Riya invests over ₹1 crore in cultivation, irrigation, fencing.
• 2023: Ms. Kavana returns and discovers Respondent claiming the land.
Arbitrator A:
Both parties agree there was no written agreement and that the Claimant’s father managed the
land informally.

4. Submission & Explanation of Evidence (4 min)

Claimant’s Counsel:
We submit:
• C1: Emails between Claimant and father referring to “caretaker” role.
• C2: Registered Title Deed in Claimant’s name.
• C3: Tax receipts in Claimant’s name till 2022.
Respondent’s Counsel:
We submit:
• R1: Loan documents (₹1.05 crores) for agricultural improvement.
• R2: Infrastructure invoices (borewell, fencing, tractor repairs).
• R3: Local panchayat affidavits recognizing Respondent as cultivator.

Arbitrator B:
All evidence is hereby admitted into the record.

5. Cross-Examinations (10 min total; 5 min each)

Claimant’s Counsel Cross-Examines Respondent

Q1: Did the Claimant’s father ever state the land was being given permanently?
A: No, but there was no restriction either.
Q2: Why didn’t you apply for title mutation?
A: I feared losing what I’d built.
Q3: Do you acknowledge the land was never in your name legally?
A: Yes, but I believed long-term possession gave me a right.

Respondent’s Counsel Cross-Examines Claimant

Q1: Did you visit or monitor the land after your father’s death?
A: No, I was abroad, but I trusted things were in order.
Q2: Why no legal agreement with your father or Respondent?
A: It was informal—a family matter.
Q3: Did you object at any point before 2023?
A: No. I only realized the extent of the change recently.

6. Arbitrators’ Clarifications (5 min)

Arbitrator A (to Claimant):
If your father entrusted the land to the Respondent, do you recognize her efforts?
Claimant: I do—but only as a caretaker, not an owner.
Arbitrator B (to Respondent):
Did you ever communicate directly with Ms. Kavana over these years?
Respondent: No. All communication was through her father.
Arbitrator A (to both):
Are you open to an amicable settlement, considering the emotional and financial
investments?

7. Negotiation Attempt Between Parties (4 min)

Claimant’s Counsel:
We offer a 12-year lease, 40% annual profit-sharing, and ₹75 lakhs in goodwill
compensation.
Respondent’s Counsel:
We counter with:
• Same lease term
• 40% profit-sharing
• 35% of the land’s market value as fair compensation
Arbitrator B:
Would you meet midway on a structured payout over time?
Claimant: Agreed in principle, provided title stays untouched.
Respondent: Agreed, if financial terms are secured legally.

8. Closing Arguments (3 min)

Claimant’s Counsel:
The law protects rightful titleholders. We believe our offer fairly balances legal ownership
and Respondent’s labour.
Respondent’s Counsel:
While legal title may rest with the Claimant, equity supports our client's long-standing
possession and improvement of the land.
9. Arbitral Award (2 min)
Arbitrator A:
After careful consideration, we find:
• Title remains with Ms. Kavana.
• Possession by Ms. Riya was not legally hostile to qualify as adverse possession.
• However, her long investment merits fair compensation.
Final Award:
• Ms. Riya receives a 12-year lease.
• 40% profit-sharing annually.
• Ms. Kavana to pay 35% of land’s current market value as equitable compensation.
• Post-lease, Respondent to vacate without future claim.
Arbitrator B:
This award is final and binding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We thank
all parties for their cooperation.