About limitation act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title time limit is of
Twelve years, When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
Dear sir ,case is as follows:-
some property is leased out for 20 years in 1937 to 1947 by Mr A and after this tenancy is carried out orally by month by month and in 2007 Mr A died.
Mr B son of MR A has got title of property after his father death,nature of property is ancestral,
can suit can be filed as per limitation act
since time limit is for 12 years on the basis of title and son mr b has got title after his fathers death in 2007,
as per my view possesion becomes adverse to
son mr b only when he got title over the property and thus he can file a suit.
please give your opinion & the other ways by which suit for possesion can be filed
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 17 September 2011
When the possession of the property has been given to the lessee under a lease agreement, and thereafter if the property was given on month to month basis (one does not know whether you have any proof of rent - whether rent was received in cheque or cash etc.) where does the question of "Adverse possession" arises?
It is quite doubtful whether one would have given the property on oral lease on month to month basis for such a long time i.e. from 1957 to 2007. It is little hard to digest.
Guest
(Expert) 17 September 2011
I don't think so. Since the property is leased out it become tenancy and after that tenant holding over. If the possessor denies the title of the owner he cannot claim adverse possession. In this case the occupant can be evicted by due process of law.
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 17 September 2011
I agree with the experts. i further add to the same that adverse possession comes into force only when you have the possession knowing fully well that the property does not belong to you and you have occupied it where though occupied it without any title,interest or ownership and the original owner knows fully well that you have occupied it and he does not object for the same in ways which are possible to dispute the same. then you can conclude the adverse possession.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 17 September 2011
YOUR PM WAS IN THIS RESPECT WHICH I HAVE REPLIED ALREADY.
Here also i see you have not given required facts and that lacked in your PM too.
If the tenant came by a lease deed for 20 years and continued in possession as he was never evicted by any eviction proceeding initiated by land lord,then ipso facto he [lessee]after expiry of his tenancy became a
DEFACTO tenant,so being the case,rent paid or not no matter,such a DEFACTO tenant can NOT CLAIM ANY ADVERSE POSSESSION,HIS VERY CLAIM LEAD TO HIS EVICTION ALSO.
THE CRUX IS TO PROVE THAT HE CAME IN POSSESSION BY A LEASE AGREEMENT AND SINCE THEN HAS REMAINED EVER TILL DATE,WHICH YOU CLAIM,YOU CAN.
SUCH BEING THE CASE UNLESS HE PROVES HE WAS EVICTED OR SURRENDERED THE TENANCY ON HIS OWN, AND THAT AT A SUBSEQUENT POINT OF TIME RE ENTERED WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION BUT WITH IN LESSOR/OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE SHOWING HOSTILITY TO HIS TITLE OF WHICH OWNER REMAINED SILENT SPECTATOR,ONLY THEN,HE CAN SUCCEED,WHICH WOULD BE TOUGH FOR HIM TOO IF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS NOT AN OPEN LAND UP ON WHICH HE HAS ALSO RAISED SOME CONSTRUCTIONS OR HAS MADE SOME BOUNDARIES,I MEAN HOSTILE ACTS AGAINST OWNER'S TITLE.
SO CASE IS EVENLY BALANCED, EVEN THOUGH FACTS SUPPLIED ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO JUDGE EACH AND EVERY ASPECT AND THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE OR DO NOT???
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 17 September 2011
ur father was very liberal person my anonymous from month to month so long..it has added ur problem but where there is way there is right...
Shastri J.K.
(Expert) 17 September 2011
I agree with the experts.
jitender pawaria
(Expert) 17 September 2011
I agree with the experts. i further add to the same that adverse possession you can use in defense not in form of attack. if you filed a suit for declaration first you proved you father was tenant in the land without paying any rent to the original land lord second most impotent thing you mentioned specific date when you come in possession and your possession in knowledge of owner and possession must be open hostile and without interaption mare long possession is not constitute adverse possession.
Now second thing is that its depend upon which type of tenant according to revenue record if you are recorded as tenant in revenue record then owner of the land can`t disposed without due course of law because our Hon`ble Supreme Court already stated in many citation that "ONCE A TENANT ALWAYS BE A TENANT"
Chanchal Nag Chowdhury
(Expert) 18 September 2011
Once a tenant, always a tenant unless he purchases the property. No question of adverse Possession.
girish shringi
(Expert) 19 September 2011
Experts have enlighten the case with quality.
