Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit, J.
Puran Singh S/o Attra Singh
Versus
Ram Murti
Regular Second Appeal No. 106 of 1957,
Decided On : DECEMBER 7, 1962
ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 28 - ARTICLE 142 - OWNERSHIP BY ADVERSE POSSESSION - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - PLAINTIFF'S TITLE EXTINGUISHED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION - RE-ENTRY AFTER ADVERSE POSSESSION DOES NOT REVIVE TITLE - SUIT FOR POSSESSION ON BASIS OF PRIOR POSSESSION MAINTAINABLE AGAINST TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land, alleging ownership and forcible possession by defendants. Defendants claimed adverse possession and that they were tenants under other defendants who had acquired ownership by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that defendants had acquired ownership by adverse possession and the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate court held that Article 144 of the Limitation Act applied and that defendants had given up possession before defendants entered, and thus plaintiff's title was not lost.
Issues: 1. Whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act applies. 2. Whether plaintiff proved possession within 12 years of the suit. 3. Whether plaintiff's title was extinguished by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 142 of the Limitation Act applies as plaintiff alleged possession and dispossession. 2. Plaintiff failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit. 3. Plaintiff's title was extinguished by adverse possession under Section 28 of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed, decree of the lower appellate court set aside, and that of the trial court restored.
P.C.Pandit, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on 28-2-1955 by Puran Singh for possession of the land in dispute measuring 2 bighas and 4 biswas comprised in khasra No. 389 situate in village Dharali, District Ambala.
2. According to the allegations of the plaintiff, he was the owner of the land in dispute and Bhag Singh and others, defendants 1 to 8, had taken forcible possession of the same in kharif 1952.
3. A preliminary objection was raised by defendants 1 to 8 that Tilak Ram, Ram Multi, Ram-Sarup and Raj Kumar were also necessary parties to the suit as defendants 1 to 8 had taken the land on lease from them. A preliminary issue was, therefore, struck on 22-6-1955 as to whether these persons were necessary parties to the suit. On 29-8-1955 the counsel for the plaintiff stated that he had no objection to making these persons as parties. The amended plaint wag, consequently filed on 1-10-1955, in which these persons were added as defendants 9 to 12. It may be mentioned that since Tilak Ram had died, his widow Smt. Shakuntala was impleaded as defendant No. 9.
4. The suit was contested by alt the defendants, who denied the ownership of the plaintiff and pleaded that defendants 9 to 12 had become the owners of this suit land by adverse possession. Defendants 1 to 8 alleged that they were occupying the land in dispute as tenants under defendants 9 to 12.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the defendants Nos. 10 to 12 have become owners by adverse possession for statutory period?
2. Is the suit within time?
3. Has the plaintiff no locus standi to file the suit?
4. Relief.
6. The trial Judge held that defendants 10 to 12 had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. He further held that the suit was governed by Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act and the plaintiff having failed to prove his possession of the land in dispute within 12 years, bis suit was barred by limitation. On issue No. 3, however, it was held that the plaintiff had locus standi to file the present suit. On these findings, the suit was dismissed.
7. When the matter came up in appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, he came to the conclusion that the suit was governed by Article 144 of the Indian Limitation Act and not Article 142 as decided by the trial Court. He also found that defendants 9 to 12 were in adverse possession of the suit land for the statutory period. They, however, gave up possession sometime before 1952, when defendants 1 to 8 came into possession. According to the learned Judge, there was, however, nothing in the revenue entries to show that defendants Nos. 1 to 8 were in possession as tenants under defendants 9 to r2. It was, therefore, found that the rights which had been acquired by defendants 9 to 12 in this land by virtue of their adverse possession came to an end, when they gave up the possession of this land. The learned Judge, therefore, found that the Tights of the plaintiff in the property in suit had, therefore, not been lost and he was entitled to the possession of the same against all the defendants. As a result, he accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and granted the plaintiff a decree for possession with costs throughout. Against this, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.
8. The first question for determination in this case is whether Article r42 or Article 144 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to this case. The plaintiff in his plaint had stated that he was the owner of the land in dispute and had been paying its land revenue. Defendants 1 to 8 got into possession forcibly in kharif 1952. It is true that the plaintiff did not say in so many words that he was actually in possession of the property and had been dispossessed therefrom by defendants 1 to 8, but reading the plaint as a whole I have no manner of doubt that the plaintiff did plead possession and dispossession. I
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
