Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a suit for possession of property. The original plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property, while the defendants (appellants) asserted title by adverse possession. The second appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law regarding adverse possession. Subsequently, an additional substantial question of law was framed concerning limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court heard the parties on these questions. The appellants were the original defendants, and the respondents were the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The court considered the averments in the plaint and the suit notice to determine whether the suit was barred by limitation. The judgment focused on the application of Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deal with suits for possession of immovable property based on adverse possession or dispossession. The court's analysis centered on the factual assertions made by the plaintiff in the plaint and the notice, which indicated that the plaintiff's possession was lost beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the court held that the suit was barred by limitation and allowed the appeal, setting aside the decrees of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Articles 66 and 67 - Suit for Possession - The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming ownership of suit property. The defendants pleaded adverse possession. The court framed an additional substantial question of law whether the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the averments in the plaint and suit notice. Held that the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the original plaintiff was barred by limitation in view of the averments in the plaint and in the suit notice and in the light of Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the decrees of the lower courts and dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
- Articles 66 and 67 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 100 CPC
- Substantial question of law
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 135
Second Appeal No.447 of 1987
Shri S.G.Page for the Appellants, Shri P.V.Samant for the Respondents
Baburao Bala Bhosale, Sou.Parubai Baburao Bhosale, Sou.Sarubai Hanumant Nimbalkar
Shankar Ramkrishna Kulkarni (since deceased by heirs & L.Rs.) - Nandkumar Shankar Kulkarni, Ganesh Shankar Kulkarni, Sou.Mangal Madhukar Kulkarni, Sou.Smita Suresh Deshpande, Sou.Urmila Laxman Khade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against decree in suit for possession of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the decrees of the lower courts and dismiss the suit.
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and that they had acquired title by adverse possession.
Previous Decisions
The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the original plaintiff.
Issues
Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation based on the averments in the plaint and suit notice.
Respondents argued that the suit was within limitation and that the plaintiff had title.
Ratio Decidendi
The suit was barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, based on the averments in the plaint and suit notice.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the suit filed by the original plaintiff was barred by limitation, in view of the averments in the plaint and in the suit notice and in the light of Article 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the original plaintiff for possession. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendants filed a second appeal, which was admitted on a substantial question of law regarding adverse possession. Subsequently, an additional substantial question of law regarding limitation was framed. The High Court heard the appeal and allowed it, dismissing the suit.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100
- Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 66, 67
