AI Overview...
-
Plea of Ouster - The plea of ouster requires that the defendant must actively and effectively exclude the co-owner from possession, which must be pleaded and proved in court. Ouster involves a clear assertion that the possession is adverse and exclusive, often necessitating acknowledgment of title and specific facts to establish adverse possession. Without establishing ouster, the claim of adverse possession by a co-owner is weak or invalid. THURU KHADIA VS BUDHU KHADIA - Orissa, Ladhuram VS Municipal Board, Ganganagar - Rajasthan, Kundan VS Kanahya - Himachal Pradesh, T. Subramania Nadar VS T. Varadharajan - Madras
-
Plea of Limitation - The plea of limitation pertains to the statutory period within which a suit must be filed. For adverse possession, the Limitation Act prescribes specific time frames (usually 12 years for co-owners under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908). If the possession is continuous and adverse for the statutory period, the right to claim ownership can be extinguished. Limitation acts as a bar to filing suits after the prescribed period, but its application depends on whether the possession qualifies as adverse and continuous. Notably, the limitation period does not apply if the possession is not adverse or if there is no ouster. THURU KHADIA VS BUDHU KHADIA - Orissa, T. Subramania Nadar VS T. Varadharajan - Madras, GENERAL MANAGER, N. E. RLY. VS SHRI PAT - Allahabad, Balammal vs Velu (Died) - Madras
-
Main Difference:
- Nature: The plea of ouster is a factual plea requiring proof of active exclusion and adverse possession, which must be pleaded specifically. It relates to the conduct and state of possession that demonstrates hostility towards co-owners.
- Timing/Limitations: The plea of limitation is a procedural defense based on the expiry of the statutory period within which a suit can be filed, regardless of the actual possession status, provided the possession is adverse and continuous for the requisite period.
- Legal Effect: Establishing ouster is essential to prove adverse possession against co-owners; failure to do so weakens the adverse possession claim. Limitation, if successfully invoked, extinguishes the right to sue after the prescribed period, irrespective of whether ouster was established.
Analysis & Conclusion:
While both pleas relate to adverse possession, ouster is a factual and substantive plea that must be specifically pleaded and proved, demonstrating that the possession was hostile, exclusive, and adverse to the co-owner. In contrast, limitation is a procedural plea that bars claims if the statutory period has expired, assuming the possession was adverse and continuous. Both are crucial in adverse possession cases but serve different functions—ouster establishes the adversity and hostility, while limitation defines the time boundary for filing suits.
Search Results for "Difference between the Pl Ea of Ouster and the Plea of Limitation"
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40646 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.ILANGOVAN, J
Limitation Act , 1963 vis-`- vis Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act , 1908, the onus to prove adverse possession would be on the person who raises such a plea.
1979 0 Supreme(Ori) 48 • India - Orissa
P.K.MOHANTY
MAY LEAD TO PRESUMPTION OF OUSTER. ... ADVERSE POSSESSION - OUSTER - CO-OWNERS - PRESUMPTION - ADVERSE POSSESSION BY ONE CO-OWNER - REQUISITES - OUSTER MUST BE PLEADED ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ouster has to be pleaded and proved. ... In this respect, there is a fundamental difference of the co-owner's adverse possession from the adverse possession on the part of a stranger. ... It is significant to note that defendant No. 1 who is now aged about 70 years did not support the pl....
2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 782 • India - Karnataka
N.KUMAR, H.BILLAPPA
Billappa, JJ] Plea as to ouster - If ouster is to be pleaded, the title has to be acknowledged. ... If, therefore, plea of ouster is not established, a fortiori the title of other co-sharers must be held to have been accepted. ’Ouster ... Billappa, JJ] Limitation - Limitation Act prescribes no time limit for filing a suit for partition by a co sharer or co-owner - However ... A plea must be raised and it must be shown when possessio....
1953 0 Supreme(HP) 13 • India - Himachal Pradesh
CHOWDHRY
. 124, 28 - HINDU LAW - PUJARI - JOINT HOLDERS - OUSTER - POSSESSION - PROFITS - EXPLANATION TO ART. 124. ... ADVERSE POSSESSION - HEREDITARY OFFICE - ACQUISITION OF TITLE - ADMISSIONS - INTERPRETATION - LIMITATION ACT (IX OF 1908), ARTS ... office by adverse possession and that the defendant-petitioner's right to the office had been extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation ... The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents that the defendant did not say that he cultivated the land in lieu of puja makes no #HL_S....
2017 0 Supreme(AP) 598 • India - Andhra Pradesh
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, N.BALAYOGI
But, in spite of that, there is an essential difference between them and that is whereas estoppel is a rule of evidence waiver is ... Therefore, the failure of the party to challenge the same, in certain circumstances could be taken advantage of by raising the plea ... Though the trial Court did not actually look at Article 110 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the trial Court came to the right conclusion on the plea of ouster. ... , the trial Court failed to apply Article 110 of the Schedule to th....
1962 0 Supreme(AP) 41 • India - Andhra Pradesh
P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, VENKATESAM
ADVERSE POSSESSION - OUSTER - CO-OWNERS - LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 28 - Adverse possession of co-owners for more than 12 ... years - Ouster of other co-owners - Extinguishment of right to property - Declaration of right in previous litigation - Effect - ... of a plea and an issue intended to find that the defendants 3 to 4 therein failed to establish the plea of ouster. ... According to Section 28 of the Limitation Act, at the determination of the period limited....
2016 0 Supreme(AP) 80 • India - Andhra Pradesh
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
possession must be so effective so as to bring it to specific knowledge of owner – Such requirement may be insisted on where an ouster ... of adverse possession is projected, inherent in the plea is that someone else was owner of property – What law requires is that ... true owner and it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession – Whenever plea ... Limitation & Condition: The principle difference between Limitation & Condition is ....
1966 0 Supreme(Raj) 104 • India - Rajasthan
SHINGHAL
(f) Limitation Act, Sec. 23— Infringement of right of full use of public road by allowing stalls is a continuous wrong. ... C, Sec. 91(2)—Waiver—Where defendant knew all facts, failure to take plea of lack of consent amounts to waiver. ... limitation. ... It was also cited with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bala Krishnas case (16), but that was also in approval of the principle that where the impugned act amounts to ouster, sec. 23 of the Limitation Act has no application. ... Shre....
1987 0 Supreme(All) 39 • India - Allahabad
B.D.AGRAWAL, R.S.DHAVAN
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 - JURISDICTION - PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - OUSTER - HELD, JURISDICTION ... OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY NOT OUSTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985. ... Issues: Whether the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is ousted by the provisions ... The Supreme Court took the view that when such an application is filed before the labour court, it would not be governed by the period of limitation as prescribed by the #HL_ST....
2003 0 Supreme(Mad) 657 • India - Madras
A.KULASEKARAN
In order to establish adverse possession by one tenant in common against his co-tenants, there must be a exclusion or ouster, and the possession subsequent to that must be for the statutory period. Ouster involves not merely the act of the person ousting but the state of mind of the person ousted. ... The difference between the two sections is that the former relates to transfer of inter vivos, while the later deals with bequest which take effect only on the death of the testator. ... The heir of the settlor contended th....
Filter by Legal Phrase
