We have heard Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, learned

counsel for the appellant. The respondent has remained

unrepresented inspite of service of notice on him. This

appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the

appellant challenging the order dated 04.04.2019 in

O.S.No.140/2013 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayapura.

The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration

that he perfected his title in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.110/1, measuring 6 acres 3 guntas situate at

Gundal village, Vijayapura taluk and district by adverse

possession and for consequential relief of permanent

injunction. The defendant filed an application under Order

VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground

4

that a suit for declaration of title based on adverse

possession was not maintainable. The trial court following

the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdwara Sahib

Vs. Gram Panchayat village, Sirthala and another,

2014 SAR (Civil) 33, allowed the application and rejected

the plaint holding that the suit was not maintainable.

Aggrieved by this order, the legal representatives of the

plaintiff have preferred this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants refers to the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur

Grewal & Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors., reported in

(2019) 8 SCC 729 and argues that by virtue of this

judgment suit for declaration is very much maintainable.

In para Nos.62 and 64 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble

Supreme

Court

has

clearly

made

the

following

observations:

“ 62. We hold that a person in possession

cannot be ousted by another person except by due

procedure of law and once 12 years’ possession is

over, even owner’s right to eject him is lost and

the possessory owner acquires right, title and

5

interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner

as the case may be against whom he has

prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that

once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be

used as sword by the plaintiff as well as shield by

the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act

and any person who has perfected title by way of

adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration

of possession in case of dispossession. In case of

dispossession by another person by taking law in

his hand a possessory suit can be maintained

under Article 64, even before the ripening of title

by way of adverse possession. By perfection of

title on extinguishment of the owner’s title, a

person cannot be remediless. In case he has been

dispossessed by the owner after having lost the

right by adverse possession, he can be evicted by

the plaintiff by taking the plea of adverse

possession. Similarly, any other person who might

have dispossessed the plaintiff having perfected

title by way of adverse possession can also be

evicted until and unless such other person has

perfected title against such a plaintiff by adverse

possession. Similarly, under other Articles also in

case of infringement of any of his rights, a plaintiff

who has perfected the title adverse possession,

can sue and maintain a suit.

63. xxxxxx

64. Resultantly, we hold that decisions of

Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village

Srithala and decision relying on it in State of

Uttarakhand

v.

Mandir

Sri

Lakshman

Siddh

Maharaj and Dharampal v. Punjab Wakf Board

cannot be said to be laying down the law correctly,

thus they are hereby overruled. We hold that plea

of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be

taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation

Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act,

6

1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of

infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.”

It is clear that the ratio in Gurudwara is no

longer a good law and a suit for declaration based on

adverse possession is very much maintainable. Therefore,

rejection of plaint by the trial court under Order VII Rule

11 of CPC cannot be sustained.

In this view, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

order is set aside. The suit