HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Hon’ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal

13th May 2025 Second Appeal No. 113 of 2015 Rajendra Prasad …............ Appellant Vs.

New India Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals and anr.

..….......Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel Counsel Respondents: Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel (Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

1. The instant second appeal was preferred by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2015 passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2011, Smt. Aruna Dhamija vs. Rajendra Prasad and another whereby the appeal of the defendant/respondent was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated

09.02.2011 passed in O.S. No. 347 of 1987.

2. Certain relevant points have been placed by Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents which certainly goes to the root of the matter.

The defendants/respondents herein were earlier the tenants of one Shakuntala Devi and on 23.01.1968 a notice was given by her for terminating their tenancy, and, as such, on expiry of 30 days period of notice, the tenancy was terminated on 22.02.1968. After terminating the tenancy, a suit for ejectment was filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the year 1968 but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.06.1970.

Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate informed this Court that the order dismissing the suit of ejectment, filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi was never been revived. He submits that after terminating the tenancy of the respondents/defendants by Smt. Shakuntala Devi w.e.f. 22.09.1968, there were no relationship in between Shakuntala Devi and the respondents/defendants as landlord and tenant since at any point of time neither rent was demanded nor paid. He submits that not only this, though tenancy was terminated on 22.02.1968 and till 22.02.1980, i.e., for 12 years neither the rent was demanded nor paid even no fresh suit for ejectment was filed, and as such, Shakuntala Devi herself extinguished her rights over the property in question in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act which reads as under:-

“27. Extinguishment of right to property.—At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.”

3. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate further submits that since, Smt. Shakuntala Devi extinguished her rights over the property in question in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, consequently, Shakuntala Devi extinguished her all rights to create any third party interest over the property in question. He submits that despite the fact that Shakuntala Devi extinguished her rights over the property in question, she created third party interest by executing a sale deed dated 05.03.1980 in favour of Smt. Satya Dabar and subsequently, Smt. Satya Dabar also created third party interest by virtue of sale deed dated 14.05.1984 in favour of Rajendra Prasad who is the appellant herein. He submits that creating third party interest by Shakuntala Devi by executing sale deed on 05.03.1980 in favour of Smt. Satya Dabar after extinguishing her rights over the property in question itself vitiate the sale deed dated 05.03.1980 and since the sale deed dated 05.03.1980 by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act is null and void, and, as such, further execution of sale deed in favour of the present appellant by Smt. Satya Dabar by virtue of sate deed dated 14.05.1984 also become null and void.

4. In support of his submission first of all Mr. Jain, Senior Advocate placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AI R 1996 SC 140 and particularly he placed reliance to paras 8, 9, 13 and 16 and submits that since the tenancy of the respondents/defendants was never been revived by Smt. Sha