RAVINDRA KAUR v. MANJIT KAUR
Bench:
- Justice Arun Mishra
- Justice S. Abdul Nazer
- Justice M.R.Shah
Issue:
Can the plaintiff take acquisition of title by adverse possession under Article 65 of Limitation Act?
Analysis:
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court had concluded that, the plea of adverse possession is available as a defence to a defendant, because of the language used in IIIrd Column of the 65th Article of Limitation Act as it states the limitation of 12 years from the date of defendant’s possession becoming adverse to plaintiff. The court stated that, the column does not suggest that the plaintiff can file a suit for possession.
• Supreme Court discussed a large number ofself decisions and various decisions of Privy. Council, High Courts, English Courts and observations of Halsbury Laws which indicated that suit can be filed by plaintiff on the basis of title acquired by adverse possession or on the basis of possession of Article 64 and 65. there is no bar under Article 65 or any provision of Article 65 against the said issue
• It was also stated that the statute does not define adverse possession, it is a common law concept, whose period is prescribed under Limitation Act’s Article 65 as 12 years. Limitation Act does not define adverse possession nor contains a provision that the plaintiff cannot sue based on adverse possession. It only deals with limitation to sue and extinguishment of rights.
• Under Article 64 as well a suit can be filed based on possessory title; and law never intends to deprive a perfect title holder from filing a suit under Article 65 to recover possessions and to render him remediless.
• Law of adverse possession does not qualify to defendant alone but also to the person filing the suit. It only restricts the right of the owner to recover possession before the period of limitation fixed for the expiry of right. Once the right expires another person acquires perspective right which cannot be defeated by re-entry of the owner or subsequent acknowledgement of his rights.
• The suit can be filed only based on the possessory title for appropriate relief under the Specific Relief Act by a person in possession. If the rightful owner does not commence possession within the period of limitation, his rights are lost and person in possession would acquire absolute title. The Court then stated that in the opening part of Article 65 expression ‘title’ has been used, it includes the title acquired by the plaintiff by way of adverse possession. The concept of adverse possession goes beyond completion of period and extinguishment of right confers the same right on the possessor, which has been extinguished and not more than that.
• The Court also stated that the trespasser’s long possession is not equal to adverse possession as trespasser’s possession is constructed to be on behalf of the owner, the casual user does not constitute adverse possession. The owner can take possession from the trespasser at any time. Adverse possession is heritable and is transmissible to one or more persons. Two distinct trespassers cannot take their possession to constitute conferral of right by adverse possession for the prescribed period.
• Lastly it stated that, the property which is dedicated to public use cannot be accrued by rights of adverse possession.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court overruled some judgments which did not lay down the law correctly and held that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitations Act, 1963 to sue an aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. The matter was later to be placed on the basis of merit for consideration before the appropriate Bench.
Click here to register
