Outer Limitation For Suit For Possession Based On Title Is Not Lost Merely Because Relief Of Declaration Is Also Sought: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that merely because relief of declaration is also sought in a suit for possession, the outer limitation of 12 years is not lost.

In this case, the plaintiffs were held entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land. The objection of the defendants was that the limitation for the suit is three years as the suit is one for declaration, and thus was filed out of limitation. Though Trial Court accepted this contention, the First Appellate Court and the High Court decreed the suit.

When this contention was reiterated before the Apex Court, the three judge bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the suit is not only for declaration but the plaintiffs also prayed for possession of the suit land. It said:

"The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years and, therefore, the suit is within limitation. Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of this Court in L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar is wholly misplaced. That judgment has no applicability since that case was admittedly only a suit for declaration and not a suit for both declaration and possession. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land. However, the main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the instant case, even if the case of the defendants is taken at the highest, the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs only on 19.08.1978 when possession was handed over to the defendants,"

Lesser Unclaimed Reliefs Can Be Granted

Another contention taken by the defendants was that the High Court had created a new case for the plaintiffs by declaring them to be Mutawalis. Since plaintiffs had not claimed the relief that they were Mutawalis, the High Court could not have granted this relief. Referring to judgment in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, the bench said that the lesser relief or smaller version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted

The plaintiffs claimed the status of Inamdars which is a higher position than that of Mutawalis. The High Court has granted a lesser or lower relief and not a higher relief or totally new relief and, therefore, we reject this contention also.  

Click here to Download Judgment

Read Judgment