In Suit For Declaration Of Title With Further Relief Of Possession, Limitation Period Of 12 Years Applies; Not 3 Years : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that while the limitation period in a suit typically follows the main relief, this does not apply when the main relief is a declaration of title, as there is no limitation for such declarations. Instead, the limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief sought.
Therefore, the Court said that when along with a relief for declaration of title, a relief for possession is also claimed, then the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the possession of immovable property based on title.
"In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist," the Court observed.
The Court followed the decision in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa reported in AIR 1961 SC 808, where it was been laid down that in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the appeal filed against the Karnataka High Court decision that affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to allow the Respondent-plaintiff to make an amendment to the original suit (plaint) to claim possession of the suit property along with the declaration of title of the property.
The trial court dismissed the suit in 2014, despite recognizing the plaintiff's ownership, due to the absence of a prayer for possession. The Trial Court ruled that the case was barred under Article 58, asserting that the prayer for declaration should have been filed within three years of the alleged wrongful possession. The suit was filed in 2011.
The plaintiffs filed a First Appeal in 2014, during which the plaint was amended to include a prayer for possession.
The First Appellate Court allowed the amendment and reversed the Trial Court's judgment, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff's heirs. The First Appellate Court applied Article 65, granting the plaintiffs twelve years to claim possession based on title, unless the defendants could prove adverse possession.
The defendants' Second Appeal to the High Court was dismissed, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court considered the question of whether the plaintiffs' original suit, amended at the first appeal stage to seek possession of the suit property, was time-barred. Specifically, the question was whether the suit fell under Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Pardiwala J. observed that the relief for possession of the immovable property based on title would be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act due to non-applicability of the limitation period to the main suit seeking relief of a declaration of title.
Question Of Limitation Doesn't Arise When Plaintiff Seeks Relief Of Possession Based On Title
Moreover, the Court observed that when the relief of the possession is sought by the plaintiff based on title and interests in the property and the defendant fails to prove that they were in adverse possession of the property then the question of limitation does not arise.
It is relevant to point out the observation recorded by the First Appellate Court, followed by the High Court, and approved by the Supreme Court.
“As per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court when the suit is for possession based on title, once the title is established unless the defendant proves adverse possession, the plaintiff cannot be non suited. Here the claim of the plaintiff by virtue of the title succeeded by through her ancestors. Under such circumstances unless the defendants have pleaded and proved that they are in adverse possession against to the interest of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be non suited. Accordingly now it is settled principle of law that when the plaintiff established right, title and interest over the suit property and the defendants are in possession unless and until the defendants are proved that they are in adverse possession and they became owners over the particular property by virtue of adverse possession the plaintiff cannot be non suited and it cannot be hold that suit is barred by law of limitation. Admittedly the defendants nowhere have pleaded that they are in possession of the suit property, adverse to the interest and right against to the plaintiff. Under such circumstances this Court of the considered opinion that the suit is not barred by limitation as contended by the defendants and the suit is in time and the plaintiff is entitled the relief as sought for.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. D P Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Adv. Mr. Vivek Ram R, Adv. Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parikshith Maliye, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.R., AOR
Case Title: MALLAVVA VERSUS KALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1031