Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiffs were the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties – Legal heirs of original plaintiff filed First Appeal with amendment of plaint, wherein plaintiffs prayed for possession of the suit property – The First Appellate Court allowed the application of amendment and also reversed the judgment and order passed by the trial Court – Appellantsdefendants filed Second Appeal, which was dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, appellants contended that the suit would be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and is liable to be dismissed being time barred:
Held: As far as title to the property is concerned, the plaintiff was able to establish that she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties – In the First Appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs, the plaint was permitted to be amended and added the prayer for recovery of the possession from the defendants came to be added – It is true that as regards the findings on title and ownership, the defendants filed cross-objections before the First Appellate Court and those were looked into and dismissed – It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice – A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure – The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost – However, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application – Article 65 of the Limitation Act lays down description of suit for possession of immovable property or any interest based on title – The time from which period it begins to run is when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff – When the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited – In C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa, it was held that in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief – In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists – When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit – The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist. [Paras 9, 23, 29, 31, 32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.