Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural lands originally owned by Punjab. Upon his death, his widow Parwatabai succeeded to the estate in 1941 as a limited owner. The appellant claimed that Parwatabai had executed a registered gift deed in 1941 in favour of her husband and that possession had been continued since then. The respondents, who were daughters of Parwatabai, contended that on the death of their mother in 1966, they became owners of the property, were dispossessed in 1976, and filed a suit for possession based on title. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, holding that the respondents succeeded to their father's estate on their mother's death and the suit was filed within the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant, by special leave, argued before the Supreme Court that because possession was under a gift deed, Explanation (b) to Article 65 placed the burden on the respondents to prove when possession became adverse and that Article 64, not Article 65, applied. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that Article 65 applies to a suit for possession based on title where the defendant's possession has become adverse to the plaintiff; the defendant must prove the exact date when adverse possession began. Since the appellant failed to establish such date and the limited owner died in 1966, the suit filed within twelve years from that date was within limitation. The Court also reiterated that a widow holding a limited estate could only gift the enjoyment of the life estate and could not transfer title to the property. Therefore, upon her death, the heirs were entitled to assert their title. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Adverse Possession and Title Suits - Applicability of Article 65 - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - In a suit for possession of immovable property based on title, Article 65 governs and limitation runs from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff; the burden lies on the defendant to prove the exact date adverse possession began. The appellant failed to establish such date, so the suit filed within twelve years of the limited owner's death in 1966 was not barred. Held that Article 65 was rightly applied and no title by prescription was perfected (Paras 1-3). B) Hindu Law - Widow's Limited Estate - Scope of Gift by Limited Owner - Hindu Law (uncodified), Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - A widow holding a limited estate could only gift enjoyment of the life estate and could not transfer title to the property. Upon her death, the reversioners or heirs became entitled to assert their title to the estate. Held that the gift deed did not defeat the respondents' title and they were entitled to possession (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 65 or Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a suit for possession based on title when the defendant claims adverse possession; whether a gift by a limited owner can transfer title beyond her life estate
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was correctly applied; the appellant failed to prove the exact date on which adverse possession began; the plaintiffs filed suit within twelve years of the limited owner's death in 1966; no title by prescription was perfected. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- For possession of immovable property based on title
- Article 65 of the Limitation Act
- 1963 applies
- limitation runs from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff
- burden is on defendant to prove exact date adverse possession commenced
- a limited owner cannot transfer title beyond life estate
- on death of limited owner
- heirs/reversioners entitled to assert title
- gift by limited owner transfers only life enjoyment
