Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a property dispute. The original plaintiff (now represented by legal heirs as respondents) claimed ownership of the suit property and sought possession from the defendants (appellants). The defendants raised a plea of adverse possession. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found against the defendants on the issue of title and adverse possession, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The second appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law regarding the plea of adverse possession. Subsequently, an additional substantial question of law was framed concerning limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the burden to prove adverse possession lies on the defendant, and the plaintiff's suit based on title is not barred by limitation unless the defendant establishes continuous adverse possession for the statutory period. The concurrent findings of the courts below negatived the plea of adverse possession, and no substantial question of law arose for interference. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 66 and 67 - Suit for Possession Based on Title - Burden of Proof - The question was whether the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held that the burden to prove adverse possession is on the defendant, and the plaintiff's suit based on title is not barred by limitation unless the defendant establishes continuous adverse possession for the statutory period. (Paras 1-3)
B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Plea of Adverse Possession - The appellants-defendants raised a plea of adverse possession. The court noted that the concurrent findings of the courts below negatived the plea of adverse possession, and no substantial question of law arose for interference in second appeal. (Para 1)
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 Article 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
- Title
- Burden of proof
- Concurrent findings
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 155
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 concurrent findings in a suit for possession based on title.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to challenge the decree for possession passed against them.
Filing Reason
The appellants claimed adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation.
Previous Decisions
Trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, negativing the plea of adverse possession.
Issues
Whether the suit filed by the original plaintiff was barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Whether the plea of adverse possession was established by the defendants?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that they had acquired title by adverse possession.
Respondents argued that the plaintiff was the owner and the defendants failed to prove adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for possession based on title, the burden to prove adverse possession is on the defendant. The plaintiff's suit is not barred by limitation under Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, unless the defendant establishes continuous adverse possession for the statutory period.
Judgment Excerpts
The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 11st September 1987 by observing that substantial question is formulated in ground No.8 relating to plea of adverse possession.
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 decreed by the trial court. The first appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was admitted on 11.09.1987 on a substantial question of law regarding adverse possession. On 23.07.2004, an additional substantial question of law regarding limitation was framed. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 23.03.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
- Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 66, 67
