Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.26 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 64 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 65 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Bashir Ahmad Sheikh & Ors vs Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors on 5 December, 2022
32. I am also aware that in one of the judgment rendered by me
in the case of Bashir Ahmed and others v. Mohd Yousaf Mir and
others, (CSA No.7/2006 decided on 30.01.2024) there is passing
observation made by this Court in paragraph No.12 of the judgment that
Article 142 is available in a case where the plaintiff while in possession of
the property on the basis of title or otherwise has been dispossessed or has
23 CFA No.35/2008
discontinued the possession. This observation made was without any
proper debate or discussion on any issue framed in the aforesaid case. It
may be noted that in the aforesaid case, it was on fact not proved that the
plaintiff was dispossessed or discontinued his possession twelve years
next prior to the institution of the suit. The Court, on the basis of the
evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in
constructive possession of the suit property and had not been dispossessed
by the defendants prior to twelve years of the institution of the suit.
Saroop Singh vs Banto & Ors on 7 October, 2005
In the case of Saroop Singh (supra), in para 28
of the judgment, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held thus:-
The State Bank Of Travancore vs Aravindan Kunju Panicker And Ors. on 19 March, 1971
i) Saroop Singh v. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330;
ii) Prasanna and others v. Mudegowda (D) by Lrs,
AIR 2023 SC 2967;
iii) Government of Kerala and another v. Joseph and
others, AIR 2023 SC 3988;
iv) Biranchi Narayan Tripathy v. State of Orissa and
another, RSA No.433 of 2007 decided on 10th
November, 2023; and
v) State Bank of Travancore v. Aravindan Kunju
Panicker, (1972) 4 SCC274
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs Ganga Charan Sharma on 10 July, 1979
21. It also needs to be clarified that with the promulgation of the
Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, The J&K Limitation Act
stands repealed and is replaced by the Limitation Act, 1963. Articles 64
and 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 have now removed the
ambiguity, which was created by two set of decisions on the point by the
Courts of law and would pose no difficulty in future. But, as stated above,
I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Single Bench of Delhi
High Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills (supra) that even Article 142
of the erstwhile Limitation Act, which was in pari materia with Article
142 of the J&K Limitation Act, would be applicable only to suits for
recovery of possession of immovable property based on possessory rights
and not to the suits based on title. Most of the judgments relied upon by
Mr. A.G.Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, turn on the
interpretation of Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. I am in
agreement with Mr. Sheikh that in the instant case, suit which was based
on title, the only defence available to the defendants was to assert their
adverse possession and prove that this possession had been hostile,
uninterrupted and for a continuous period of twelve years. To set up
adverse possession, the defendant must first concede that the plaintiff is
17 CFA No.35/2008
owner of the suit property. The adverse possession can only be pleaded
against rightful owner of the property. Indisputably, in the earlier round as
well as in the instant round of litigation, the defendants never accepted the
plaintiffs as owners of the suit land rather they set up a title in the State.
In such situation, even if the defendants are proved to be in possession of
the suit property for more than twelve years, their possession cannot be
termed as "adverse possession".