A suit filed by the appellants has come to be dismissed at the hands of the learned Assistant District Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The suit was for khas possession on declaration of title. The learned Assistant District Judge has agreed with the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs were able to prove their title over the suit land. They have, however, been non-suited because, they had approached the Court beyond 12 years of their dispossession. It may be stated that the case of the plantiffs was that they had been dispossessed in Baisak 1367 B.S. (corresponding to April-May, 1960) and the suit was filed in 1968, and as such was within a period of 12 years from dispossession. The learned first appel­late Court, however, found on an appraisal of the evidence that the dispossession was not in 1960, but sometime in 1955-56, if not in 1950. The further view taken is that as the defendants possessed the land for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit, the defendants held the land adversely to the plaintiff for more than 12 years before the latter had approached the Court. The decree of the trial Court was, therefore, reversed and the suit was dismissed with costs.

2. I have heard this appeal with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellants only as none appeared for the defen­dants. Before proceeding, I wanted to satisfy myself if notice of this appeal had been properly served on the main contestants who are respondents 1 to 4. The process server's report and the processes showed that notices for these respondents had been served and accepted by Jnanendra Narayan Choudhury on 12.8.77. Notices on other respondents had also been served properly.

3. The point which needs determination in this appeal is whether the suit was covered by Article 64 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Assistant District Judge after referring to the decisions of this Court in Syed Anowaruddin vs. Abdul Rahim, 1974 ALR 90; H. B. Sarma vs. H. G. Sarma, AIR 1975 Gau. 47 and that of the Supreme Court Nair Service Society vs. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165 came to the following two conclusions in the main regarding the relative scope of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act :

"(i). The two articles 64 and 65 in their application cannot be placed in two water-tight categories. There may be considerable over-lap of the two articles in a given case.

(ii). In a case where there are allegations of title, posses­sion, and subsequent dispossession even if article 65 is to be applied the plaintiff has to prove not only title but an existing title and that he has brought the suit within 12 years of dispossession."

While coming to the aforesaid conclusions, the learned Assis­tant District Judge felt that the decision in Anowaruddin (supra) is per incuriam as it has failed to take note of Nair Service Society (Supra). It was also observed that Sharm as case was also open to the charge that it too was per incuriam as it did not notice Anowaruddin.

4. According to me, there is no clash between any of the aforesaid decisions, if they are read in the context of their facts. At first the ratio of the Nair Service Society has to be noted. Therein a suit was filed for possession on the strength of posses­sory title alone. It was, however, beyond the period of six months visualised by the Specific Relief Act. A contention was therefore, made by Shri Nambiar that there could not be two periods of limitations, namely, six months (as visualised by the Specific Relief Act) and 12 years (as fixed by the Indian Limitation Act), for suits based on possession alone and that the longer period of limitation requires proof of title by the plaintiff. This contention was not accepted and the Supreme Court observed as follows. :

"The uniform view of the courts is that if section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is utilised the plaintiff need not prove title and the title of the defendant does not avail him. When

Click Here to Read the rest of this document