Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Mustt. Sulema Begum, W/o. Jabbar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Santi Ram Bora, S/o. Late Bhajo Bora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P. P. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This is an Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2007 passed in Title Appeal No.06/2007 whereby the Appeal filed by the Appellants herein was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2016 in Title Suit No.34/2006.
3. This Court vide an order dated 26.03.2008 had admitted the instant Appeal by formulating the following question of law:
4. The question therefore arises as to whether the said substantial question of law so formulated is involved in the instant appeal. From the said substantial question of law so formulated, it is seen that the question arises is as to whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in holding that the suit was within the period of limitation. This Court has duly taken note of the plaint wherein it has been mentioned that the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 started to stay in t
A suit based on title for recovery of possession is not subject to limitation, and adverse possession must be pleaded and proved with particulars to affect the limitation period.
The appellate court upheld that plaintiffs' title validly established, and amendments to pleadings for possession did not change the suit's nature, ensuring compliance with statutory limitation.
The suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, allowing 12 years from the date of adverse possession, not Article 58.
The court held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, justifying the framing of a preliminary issue for a definitive ruling, as highlighted in Section 14 of the Limitation ....
Point of Law : It is a well-settled principle of law that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuou....
The courts must consider limitation in property disputes and grant relief strictly within the scope of the plaintiff's claims.
A suit for recovery of possession is maintainable if filed within twelve years, and claims of res judicata require substantial evidence of previous identical disputes which were not demonstrated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
