Case Note & Summary
The case involves a property dispute where the appellant, Smt. Sarala Kalaghatagi, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belagavi, in O.S.No.137/2009. The trial court had decreed the suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for declaration, injunction and possession. The appellant was the defendant in the suit. The suit property was originally owned by one Mohammedsab Mulla. The appellant claimed title by adverse possession, alleging that she had been in possession for more than 12 years. The respondents, being the legal heirs of Mohammedsab Mulla, contended that the appellant was a permissive occupant and that her possession was not adverse. The trial court held that the appellant failed to prove adverse possession and that the suit was within limitation. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant's possession was permissive in nature, as she had entered the property with the consent of the original owner. The court noted that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that her possession was hostile to the true owner or that she had ousted the true owner. The court also observed that the suit was filed within 12 years from the date when the respondents' title was threatened. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decree. The cross-objections filed by the respondents were also dismissed as they did not press them.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The plaintiff claimed title by adverse possession over suit property. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession adverse to the true owner for the statutory period of 12 years. The burden was on the plaintiff to establish ouster of the true owner and continuous hostile possession. (Paras 10-15) B) Limitation - Suit for Possession - Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit for possession based on adverse possession must be filed within 12 years from the date when possession becomes adverse. The court found that the plaintiff's possession was permissive and not adverse, hence the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Regular First Appeal - The appeal against the trial court's decree was dismissed as the appellant failed to make out any ground for interference. The cross-objections were also dismissed. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved her title by adverse possession and whether the suit was within limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular First Appeal and upheld the trial court's decree. The cross-objections were also dismissed as not pressed.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Limitation
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 96 CPC
- Declaration of title
- Injunction
- Possession
