Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

possession of the suit property on the basis of inadmissible and unregistered documents. Ld counsel for the defendant took me to para. no. 2, 5, 12 and 13 of the plaint to point out that the averments in the said paras shows that the suit of the plaintiff is ex-facie barred by limitation. It is pointed out that in para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants forcibly and illegally breaking open the locks on or around 26/3/1991 and removing the office furniture of the plaintiff's father, took the forcible possession of the suit property. In para. 12 of the plaint, it is alleged that the defendants are in illegal possession of the property of the plaintiffs since 1991 and are enjoying the ill-gotten gains of the same till today. Lastly, para. 13, related to the cause of action is pointed out which reads as under:-

power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated.

16. It is very difficult to view the act of taking illegal possession of immovable property or continuance of wrongful possession, even if the wrong-doer be a party to the pending suit, as a "dealing with" the property other-wise than by its transfer so as to be covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The prohibition which prevents the immovable property being "transferred or otherwise dealt with" by a party is apparently directed against some action which would have an immediate effect, similar to or comparable with that of transfer, but for the principle of lis pendens. Taking of illegal possession or its continuance neither resemble nor are comparable to a transfer. They are one sided wrongful acts and not bilateral transactions of a kind which ordinarily constitute "deals" or dealings with property( e.g contracts to sell). They cannot confer immediate rights on the possessor. Continued illegal possession ripens into a legally enforceable right only after the prescribed period of time has elapsed. It matures into a right due to inaction and not due to the action of the injured party which can approach a court of appropriate jurisdiction for redress by a suit to regain possession. The relief against the wrong done must be sought within the time prescribed. This is Page no.-( 13)-

possession by the defendant. Ld counsel for the plaintiff specifically argued that in the written statement the case of the defendant as narrated is that they are true owners and in possession of the said suit property on the basis of title documents allegedly executed in their favour by Shri S.S. Satija. It is further argued that in para. 8 of the written statement a contradictory plea has been taken by the defendants stating that the suit for recovery of immovable property based on the title can be filed within 12 years when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to that of the plaintiff. It is argued that the defendants are claiming themselves as owners on the basis of title documents and on the other hand they are claiming that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation due to expiry of 12 years and possession of the defendants having become adverse to that of the plaintiff. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further argued that in the present case it is not the situation that the illegal possession of the defendant can be culminated into Page no.-( 16)-

legal possession due to inaction on the part of the plaintiff. It is further argued that in para. no. 6 of the plaint which is admitted to be a matter of record by the defendants, the plaintiff has clearly stated that in respect of the forcible possession by the defendants on 26/3/1991, accordingly a complaint was filed by late Shri Raghubir Wadera, father of the plaintiff against the defendants and same was still pending in the court of Ld MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi where the next date of hearing was 30/06/2006. It is further argued that the defendants themselves filed the suit for permanent injunction against the father of the plaintiff bearing no. 142/91 which was dismissed on 22/10/2005 by the court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi holding that the same was not maintainable against the present plaintiff. Thus, it shows that the alleged illegal possession of defendants was not uninterpreted and there was no inaction on the part of the plaintiff to challenge the illegal possession of the defendants. Ld counsel for the plaintiff further argued Page no.-( 17)-