Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for a suit for possession based on title begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. do not extend limitation.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 65, 58, Section 14 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 145 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96.

(B) Limitation - Suit for possession based on title - Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the period of 12 years begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff - Demarcation report showing defendant in possession and refusal to vacate crystallises adverse possession - Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. do not fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and cannot be excluded for computing limitation - The right to sue first accrues on the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the defendant’s adverse possession.

(C) Appeal - First Appellate Court’s finding on limitation - Reversal of trial court’s finding was patently illegal and perverse - Where the suit is barred by limitation, consideration of other issues like non-joinder of necessary party is unnecessary. (Paras 7-9, 13, 17-19, 22-27)

Facts of the case:
The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of suit property claiming it to be ancestral property. The defendant pleaded adverse possession and limitation. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding the suit within limitation by computing time from the date of dismissal of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (18.06.1997) and decreed the suit. The plaintiff had obtained a demarcation report on 11.07.1984 which showed the defendant in possession of the suit land recorded in plaintiff’s name, and the defendant refused to vacate. The suit was filed on 23.09.1997.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The period of 12 years started running from 11.07.1984 when the defendant’s possession became adverse after the demarcation report and refusal to vacate. The suit filed on 23.09.1997 was beyond 12 years. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. do not exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The first appellate court’s finding that limitation began from the date of culmination of Section 145 proceedings (18.06.1997) was erroneous and perverse. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not file the suit within three years under Article 58 for declaration. Since the suit was barred by limitation, the issue of non-joinder of necessary party was not required to be decided. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the first appellate court’s judgment and affirming the trial court’s dismissal. (Paras 7-9, 13, 17-19, 22-27)

Issues: The substantial question of law was whether the finding of the first appellate court reversing the trial court on limitation and non-joinder of necessary party was proper. The main issues considered were the starting point of limitation under Article 65 for possession based on title and whether proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could be treated as a cause of action for limitation purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limitation for a suit for possession based on title under Article 65 of the Limitation Act begins to run when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In this case, that point was the date of the demarcation report (11.07.1984) when the plaintiff became aware that the defendant was in possession and refused to vacate. Subsequent proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. do not create a fresh cause of action or extend the limitation period, and Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings. Therefore, the suit filed on 23.09.1997 was beyond the 12-year period and barred by limitation. Result : Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside; judgment and decree of the trial court affirmed. No order as to costs. Decree drawn accordingly. (Paras 29-32)

CAV Judgment

1. This second appeal is filed by appellant/defendant challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.02-A/2003 by learned Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja whereby learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that original plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit property pleading therein that suit property is his ancestral property upon which defendant has forcefully taken possession and has encroached upon the same. In written statement, defendant therein has pleaded that suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation. They are in possession over the suit property since lifetime of their father and by virtue of adverse possession they became owner of suit property. It is also pleaded that plaintiff had filed an application for demarcation of suit property in which it was reported that defendant was in possession of suit property. Demarcation was conducted in the year 1984 however the suit is filed after more than 12 years of demarcation report and therefore suit for possession was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that there is non-joinder of necessary party. Other children of Bihari Ram (father of original plaintiff) were not impleaded as party to suit and therefore suit is not maintainable in its form. Learned trial Court upon considering pleadings made by respective parties and evidence brought on record has dismissed the suit holding it to be barred by limitation and further recorded a finding that there was non-joinder of necessary party. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was put to challenge by plaintiff in appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC and learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 29.01.2005 allowed the appeal recording a finding that suit was filed within time and further recorded a finding that in view of entry made in revenue record in the name of plaintiff of disputed property, plaintiff alone can file suit seeking declaration of title, possession and accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of plaintiff granting decree of possession and declaration of title and further awarded mesne profit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned first appellate Court erred in reversing both the findings of learned trial Court that suit was barred by limitation and further suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party i.e. other siblings of plaintiff who on the date of filing of suit were alive. He contended that in the plaint, plaintiff himself has pleaded that plaintiff has filed an application for demarcation before Tahsildar which was registered as revenue proceeding and thereafter report was submitted on 11.07.1984 mentioning that at the time of demarcation defendant was found in possession of property recorded in name of plaintiff. On 11.07.1984 after preparation of report, plaintiff became aware of fact that defendant is in possession of suit property, though owned by him, however, he did not choose to file civil suit seeking possession of suit property within prescribed time i.e. 12 years . He also contended that learned first appellate Court taking into consideration that the application filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before Sub Divisional Magistrate on 09.07.1985 came to be dismissed on 18.06.1997, computed period of limitation from that date i.e. 18.06.1997 which is erroneous. For computing limitation, period of exclusion is provided under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as " Limitation Act"), which does not provide for exclusion of period expired in contesting proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and therefore learned first appellate Court erred in reversing finding of learned trial Court that suit was bar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURPARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JBalram Rajwade – AppellantVersusBhagwati Rajwade – RespondentSA No. 127 of 2005

Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for a suit for possession based on title begins when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. do not extend limitation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J
Balram Rajwade – Appellant
Versus
Bhagwati Rajwade – Respondent
SA No. 127 of 2005