A suit to recover possession of immovable property based on title must be filed within 12 years from the date the cause of action arose.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Patra, J. - The legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1 are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak who has decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration of right and title over the suit land and their entitlement to get vacant oossession of the suit house.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Their case is that they are the daughters of one Rama Sahu who died in the year 1950 leaving behind his widow Subarna, a son called Sukuti and the plaintiffs. After death of Rama Sahu, his son Sukuti and widow (mother of the plaintiffs) became the owners in possession of the suit land. Following the death of Sukuti in the year 1970 their mother Subarna became the full owner of the property. She died in the year 1972 leaving behind the plaintiffs and her successors-in-interest who were staying in the house of their father's-in-law. On 1 8-1977 when the plaintiffs were repairing the suit house standing on the suit land, the original defendant No 1 by breaking open the lock of the house forcibly entered into it On query being made, he disclosed that Subarna had sold the land to him for consideration. Taking advantage of the old age and illness of their mother Subarna, the defendant No. 1 took her to Dhamnagar on the plea of filing application before the Tshasildar to mutate her name in respect of her property but fraudulently obtained a sale-dead from her. According to the plaintiffs, the deed was not read over and exolained to Subarna nor any consideration passed thereunder and was not otherwise acted upon. On these allegations, the suit was filed claiming for declaration of their right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land and alternatively for recovery of possession of the same. Their further prayer was to declare the sale-deed executed by their mother Subarna in favour of the original dafendant No. 1 as void and in case the sale-deed is found valid, then a decree for partition. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and in his written statement, he pleaded that the document in question is a genuine sale-deed and Subarna after fully Knowing the contents thereof executed it for consideration of Rs. 1000/-.

3. The learned Munsif on the basis of evidence adduced in the case held:

(i) Subarna did not instruct D.W- 2 to scribe the deed (Ext. H) and there was no passing of consideration thereunder on account of which the defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land ;

(ii) The defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land,

(iii) The suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the same was filed in the year 1977 although the fact of the execution of the deed in question came to the plaintiffs' notice one month after the death of Subarna in the year 1972.

The learned Munsif denied the relief to the plaintiffs with regard to their right, title and interest over the suit land and eviction of the defendants from the suit house. He, however, decreed the suit over Ac. 002 decimals of land in plot No 263 for which there was no contest, The decision of the learned Munsif dismissing the suit as indicated above was appealed against. As there was no cross appeal or cross-objection by the defendants the findings of the learned Munsif that the deed in question was not read over and explained to the executant Subarna nor any consideration passed thereunder became final. On the basis of the said findings, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the impugned document is a void one for which Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable and the prescribed period of limitation being 12 years the suit is within time. He accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' suit declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of the house.

4. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the period of limitation for filing the suit in question is 12 years which is governed by Art,