Limitation Act, 1963 – s.27, Arts.58 and 65 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.34 – After First Settlement Deed, two sons of T executed a second settlement deed dated 31.07.1952 reverting the interest in properties back to their mother-T – Thereafter, T executed a third Settlement Deed dated 18.08.1952 bequeathing absolute interest in such properties only in favour of two sons – G filed a suit praying for a declaration as owner of the property as sole heir of T’s daughter in terms of First Settlement Deed – Trial Court held that G admitted execution of Second Settlement Deed and possession was handed over to T – The suit filed was barred by limitation – First Appellate Court confirmed the trial Court judgment – However, the High Court held that G was entitled to half share a property according to the First Settlement Deed – Propriety:
Held: If the period of limitation is to run from the date of the Second Settlement Deed, then the rights should be extinguished in 1964 – If the same were to run from either 1974 (when M, younger son of T executed settlement deed in favour of his adopted daughter V) or 1976 (when another deed was executed by M in favour of his wife P), then after 1986 or 1988 respectively, G had no right in the property on the plea of adverse possession – It is settled that a reversioner ordinarily must file a suit for possession within
12 years from the death of the limited heir or widow – That metric being applied to the instant facts, it is after the death of P, that the reversioner, or in this case the heir of the reversioner G ought to have filed the suit – The suit, the subject matter of appeal before this Court is a suit for declaration simpliciter and not possession – So, the possession still rests with heir of P – The 12 year period expired in 2016 with death of P in the year 2004 – Therefore, the suit filed in 1993 is barred by limitation – Also, Part III of the Schedule to the Limitation Act details the time period within which the declarations may be sought for – Art.58 of the Limitation Act governs the present dispute – In the instant case, the suit for declaration was filed in 1993 – This implies that the cause of action to seek any other declaration i.e. a declaration of G in the property, should have arisen only in the year 1990 – There is nothing on record to show any cause of action having arisen at this point in time, much less within the stipulated period of three years – As far as the maintainability of suit for declaration simpliciter in view of s.34 of SRA is concerned, in view of the proviso to s.34, the suit of the plaintiff-G could not have been decreed since the plaintiff sought for mere declaration without the consequential relief of recovery of possession – On a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware that the appellant-V herein was in possession of the suit property and therefore it was incumbent upon him to seek the relief which follows – It is also noted that after the death of the life-estate holder-P in 2004, there was no attempt made by the original plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek the relief of recovery of possession – Thus, the impugned judgment fails on both limitation and maintainability of suit – Judgment of the trial Court and First Appellate Court restored. [Paras 16, 17, 23, 26, 33] Adverse Possession – Claim of:
Held: Person who claims adverse possession should show : (a) on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; (d) how long his possession has continued; and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed – A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour – Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to prove his adverse possession. [Para 20]
Limitation – Adverse Possession – Dependence on limitation: Held: Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one’s right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title – The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title. [Para 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.