The judgment establishes the principle that a suit for possession and injunction may be barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, and adverse possession may be inferred from prolonged inaction of the plaintiff and predecessors.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1631 and 1690 of 2017. Although, both the appeals are arising from different suits filed for the grant of identical reliefs, however, the issue involved in both the appeals is also common.

2. Learned counsel for the parties who are also common agree that both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, the facts are being considered from RSA No. 1631 of 2017 filed by Narinder Kumar.

3. The issue which arises for consideration is "whether the plaintiff-appellant can be granted any relief in the facts and circumstances of the present case?".

4. The State Government constructed a pucca road from Village Barsat to Village Jamalpur in the year 1975-76. In the year 2012, two identical suits were filed by the appellants for possession with consequential relief of mandatory injunction and with a further relief of permanent injunction. The prayer made in the plaint is extracted as under:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession of the land about 13 marlas, which is part of land detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint above, with consequential relief a decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff for their illegal possession, use and occupation charges of the land about 13 marlas which is part of land fully detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint above and further a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further encroaching the land of the plaintiff detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint, illegally and forcibly or in any manner, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, with costs.

Any other relief to which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the plaintiff."

5. The defendant contested the suit by claiming that the suit is barred by time. The mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC has not been given. It was further asserted that the State of Haryana had constructed the road in public interest, for the welfare of the residents with the consent of the landowners and that the plaintiff had never made any request for compensation. It was claimed that the State of Haryana is holding an uninterrupted possession of the said land for more than 36 years.

6. After framing of the following issues, the parties were permitted to lead evidence:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for? OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

4. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC has been served upon the defendants? OPD.

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? OPD

6. Relief."

7. The plaintiff appeared in evidence in support of his case. In cross-examination, he stated that "it is correct that when I was born, a road was already laid near our land. It is wrong to suggest that road from Barsat to Jamalpur was laid in public interest, for our welfare and with the consent of the landowners. It is correct that my father or our predecessor never requested for payment of compensation to the Government. It is also correct that I did not serve a notice under Section 80 CPC before filing the suit. It is correct that 38 years ago, a road was constructed, my father or my predecessor never raised any objection. Volunteered I do not know if it was objected to or not."

8. On the other hand, an official from PWD (B & D) Department, appeared in evidence and claimed that the road was constructed in the public interest, for the welfare of the residents with the consent of the landowners.

9. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit, whereas learned First Appellate Court by two separate judgments of identical date, accepted the appeals and r