Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff, Thakurjee Deosthan, through its adopted son Saratchandra, filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the respondents/defendants in respect of agricultural land situated at Sihora, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. The plaintiff claimed that he was the owner and in possession of the suit land, but the defendants trespassed upon it and dispossessed him. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and possession, claiming that they were in adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title. The first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. In second appeal, the High Court framed the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession based on prior possession alone. The High Court noted that the plaintiff had adduced evidence to show that he was in possession of the land within 12 years prior to the suit, including payment of land revenue and cultivation. The defendants failed to prove their title or adverse possession. The High Court held that a plaintiff can sue for ejectment based on prior possession against a trespasser, without proving title. Since the plaintiff proved his prior possession within 12 years, he was entitled to a decree for possession. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and decreed the suit for possession with mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Suit for Possession - Prior Possession - Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of agricultural land claiming that he was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit and that the defendants trespassed. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove title. The High Court held that a plaintiff can sue for ejectment based on prior possession alone, without proving title, against a trespasser. Since the plaintiff proved that he was in possession within 12 years of the suit, he was entitled to a decree for possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit for possession based on prior possession is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse. The plaintiff must prove that he was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit. (Paras 5-8) C) Evidence - Proof of Possession - The plaintiff adduced evidence of his possession through witnesses and documents showing cultivation and payment of land revenue. The defendants failed to prove their title or adverse possession. The High Court held that the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to establish his prior possession. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff, who claimed possession of the suit land within 12 years prior to the suit, was entitled to a decree for possession against the defendants who were trespassers, and whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove title.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, and decreed the suit for possession of the suit land in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also entitled to mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession, to be determined in separate proceedings.
Law Points
- Suit for possession based on prior possession
- Section 6 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Ejectment of trespasser
- Adverse possession
- Limitation for suit for possession
- Mesne profits
