In a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession, the true owners are necessary parties because such a declaration implies the extinguishment of their title. Additionally, the specific date and mode of commencement of adverse possession must be clearly pleaded and proved to establish the claim.

Form No.J(2)

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant, for the principal relief of declaration of title by adverse possession and other consequential reliefs of permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues, by placing reliance on the judgment of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others , reported at (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 729, that adverse possession can be used as a sword for filing a suit claiming title and not merely as a shield in the capacity of the defendant.

3. Learned counsel places reliance on the cited judgment to argue that the claim of adverse possession by way of a suit is maintainable not only against the true owners but also against third parties.

4. Learned counsel submits that the appellant proved her case of adverse possession by categorically stating in the plaint that she had been in possession of the suit property for twenty-four years.

5. Moreover, several documents proving such possession were also exhibited in the suit.

6. As such, it is argued that the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact in dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of the true owners as well as on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish her case by adducing cogent evidence, oral and documentary.

7. From a perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the two grounds of which the suit was dismissed were that the true owner was not made party to the suit to enable the court to decide the adverse possession and that the plaintiff failed to prove her case by cogent evidence, oral and/or documentary.

8. The reliance placed by the plaintiff/appellant on Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra) is misplaced. In the very first paragraph of the said judgment, the question which was formulated for adjudication was stated. The said question is a follows:

“The question of law involved in the present matters is quite significant. Whether a person claiming the title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) for declaration of title and for a permanent injunction seeking the protection of his possession thereby restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession or for restoration of possession in case of illegal dispossession by a defendant whose title has been extinguished by virtue of the plaintiff remaining in the adverse possession or in case of dispossession by some other person? In the other words, whether Article 65 of the Act only enables a person to set up a plea o adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. Whether he is remediless in such a case? In case a person has perfected his title based on adverse possession and property is sold by the owner after the extinguishment of his title, what is the remedy of a person to avoid sale and interference in possession or for its restoration in case of dispossession?”

9. Thus, it is evident that the cardinal issue which fell