Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by Pandurang Sitaram Pande (original plaintiff) against his brothers and other family members for a 1/5th share in the suit property, which was originally owned by his father Sitaram @ Balabhau Pande, who died in 1978. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2001 on 08.11.2001. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. The first appellate court confirmed this decision. The plaintiff's legal representatives (appellants) filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Article 65 vs Article 110 of the Limitation Act and the burden of proof for adverse possession. The court held that the suit for partition is governed by Article 110, which provides a 12-year period from when the exclusion becomes known, and that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession. The court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation and adverse possession, directing the trial court to decide the suit afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Partition Suit - Article 65 vs Article 110 - Suit for partition of coparcenary property is governed by Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a period of 12 years from the date when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. The court held that the trial court and first appellate court erred in applying Article 65 (adverse possession) instead of Article 110. (Paras 10-15) B) Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The burden to prove adverse possession lies on the person claiming it. The defendants failed to establish that their possession was hostile, open, and continuous to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The court noted that mere long possession without animus possidendi does not constitute adverse possession. (Paras 16-20) C) Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Property - Section 6 - The suit property was ancestral coparcenary property, and the plaintiff, as a coparcener, had a right to seek partition. The court clarified that the right to partition is a continuing right and does not extinguish by mere delay unless there is ouster or exclusion. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition was barred by limitation and whether the defendants had perfected title by adverse possession.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation and adverse possession. The trial court was directed to decide the suit afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 65
- Article 110
- Adverse Possession
- Partition
- Coparcenary Property
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 6
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Section 100
