possession suit - The Legal Chamber

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant's possession became adverse. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. The...

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Court ruled that the second appeal abated entirely as the decree was joint and indivisible, and non-substitution of the deceased appellant's legal representatives would lead to inconsistent decrees. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC does not override the abatement principles under Order XXII, especially when the appeal was jointly filed by all appellants. The judgment emphasized that abatement is inevitable if the decree is based on common grounds and its reversal would create conflicting outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (r...