Case Note & Summary
The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the respondent (original defendant) in respect of agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a trespasser and had no right to the property. The defendant contended that he had been in possession for over 12 years and had perfected title by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title and that the defendant's possession was adverse. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding limitation and adverse possession. The court held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the defendant's possession had become adverse and continued for more than 12 years. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove that the suit was within limitation. The concurrent findings of the courts below were set aside, and the second appeal was allowed, dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Article 65 - Burden of Proof - The suit for possession was filed beyond 12 years from the date when the defendant's possession became adverse to the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit was within limitation. The defendant's long and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years was sufficient to perfect title by adverse possession. Held that the courts below erred in not considering the plea of adverse possession and limitation. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The failure of the lower appellate court to consider the issue of limitation and adverse possession raised a substantial question of law. The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. Held that the second appeal was maintainable and the concurrent findings were set aside. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession and mesne profits was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the defendant had perfected title by adverse possession.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and trial court are set aside. The suit for possession and mesne profits is dismissed.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 65
- Burden of proof
- Concurrent findings
- Substantial question of law
- Mesne profits
- Possessory title
