When Title Declaration Suit Seeks Possession Recovery Also, Limitation Period For Possession Recovery Applicable : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that when along with a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is sought, the limitation period would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief.

In other words, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained that if in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief of recovery of possession is also sought, then the limitation period for filing the suit would be governed by the limitation period prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of possession (i.e., 12 years as per Article 65 of Limitation Act) and not the one prescribed for seeking declaration of title (i.e., 3 years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act).

“In the case at hand, the suit is not simply for the declaration of title rather it is for a further relief for recovery of possession. It is to be noted that when in a suit for declaration of title, a further relief is claimed in addition to mere declaration, the relief of declaration would only be an ancillary one and for the purposes of limitation, it would be governed by the relief that has been additionally claimed. The further relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of possession based upon title and as such its limitation would be 12 years in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.”, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal said.

The bench drew reference from the case of C. Mohammad Yunus vs. Syed Unnissa And Ors (1961) where it has 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 Court reasoned that “in a suit for declaration of title along with recovery of possession of an immovable property, 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.”

In this case, the trial court refused to decree the suit for declaration of title along with recovery of possession of immovable property based on the validly executed gift deed stating that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years from the revocation of the gift deed. Since the gift deed was validly executed, therefore the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's argument of calculating the limitation period from the date of revocation of the gift deed.

“Once it is held that the gift deed was validly executed resulting in the absolute transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the same is not liable to be revoked, and as such the revocation deed is meaningless especially for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation for instituting the suit.”, the court said.

The Court applied the aforesaid principle of law that once the title rights in the property continue to subsist then there would be no limitation for declaration of title. The only limitation period that needs to be counted is for seeking recovery of possession, the court clarified.

“Even otherwise, though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act but for recovery of possession based upon title, the limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, suit for the relief of possession was not actually barred and as such the court of first instance could not have dismissed the entire suit as barred by time.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: N. THAJUDEEN VERSUS TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6333 OF 2013

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 839

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Ms. T.Archana, Adv. Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR Mrs. Gurinder Jai, Adv. Ms. Sanjna Dua, Adv.