Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Suit for possession barred by limitation – Civil Suit filed by deceased Respondent for possession of the land in suit in 2001 as they alleged to have come to know about construction of the hospital only in 2000 – Appellant/State claiming that the land in suit had been donated by original owner i.e., father of the Plaintiff, in 1958 for establishing a Veterinary Hospital and possession was delivered – Appellant/State constructed the hospital from the funds of the State Government in 1958-1959 and since then, the same has been functional:
Held: Article 65 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates that in a suit for possession of immovable property, the period of limitation will be twelve years from when the possession of the defendant becomes averse to the plaintiff – Fact remains and has been duly established from the record that the hospital had been constructed on the land belonging to the original owner i.e., father of the plaintiff sometime in the year 1958-59 – At that time, the owner of the said land was alive, and he did not object to it, which clearly indicates that he had donated the land in suit for construction of Veterinary Hospital – Further, it is evidenced by the letter dt 24.04.1981 wherein the Plaintiff had made an enquiry from the concerned Tehsildar regarding the exact location of the Veterinary Hospital that the Plaintiff was aware of its existence in 1981, if not before – If the plaintiff’s case was that it was never donated but still the hospital had been constructed, then the plaintiff should have instituted a suit for possession within 12 years – Having not done so, the suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of possession. [Paras 21, 22, 23]
Adverse Possession – Claim of – State could not claim adverse possession, not applicable in present case:
Held: The argument of Plaintiff that the State could not claim adverse possession is not germane to the present case – It is unfortunate that after 43 years, his son filed the suit for possession without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for the said relief also by virtue of Article 58 of Limitation Act – Period of limitation being three years. [Para 24]
Practice and Procedure – Plaintiff cannot be allowed to surpass limitation by way of vague and clever drafting: Held: It is evident that the plaintiff purposely drafted/filed a vague plaint which lacked the essential details of when the hospital was constructed, when the plaintiff became aware of such construction, when the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff, when his father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981 to the Tehsildar etc; the first date and document mentioned in the plaint is of the legal notice dated 09.11.2000 – It is nothing but a clear attempt by Respondent at surpassing the bar under limitation law for filing the suit since the existence of the hospital was a fact well known to him since long ago. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
Suit for possession – Burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff: Held: As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession – In view of the clear finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the Respondent by virtue of Section 110. [Paras 30, 31, 32] Revenue Record – Entry in revenue records would not confer any title on the Plaintiff – Rights conferred on the Appellant/State under the gift deed cannot be taken away: Held: Merely because the name of the Plaintiff continued in the revenue records (Jama Bandis), it would not confer any title upon him – Revenue records are only entries for the purpose of realising tax by the Municipal Corporations or land revenue by Gram Sabhas – The documents exhibited by the defendants could not be ignored as they were public documents, copies of which were filed and duly proved that the hospital was functional much before 1981 – Even if the gift deed was not placed on record, due explanation was given – The lethargy/carelessness on the part of the State in not getting the revenue records corrected on the basis of the gift deed would not take away the rights conferred on the State under the gift deed.[Paras 27, 28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). 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.