Article 65 of limitation act
Samarth
(Querist) 01 June 2014
This query is : Resolved
Can you please enlighten me with the meaning of the terms - Remainder man, reversionary or a devisee in the following -
"Where the suit is by a remainder-man, a reversionary (other than a landlord); or a devisee the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the estate of the remainder man, reversionary or devisee, as the case may be falls into possession;"
We had ancestral property which came to My Grandfather in 1951 (by partition)and he passed away in 1990.
He had 2 sons and 2 married daughters. The sons are managing the properties without any involvement of the daughters since 1990. The Land and BMC records also have the son's names.
What are the terminologies above mean with respect to the daughters.
ROHIT SHARMA
(Expert) 01 June 2014
1. your reference in context do not apply in case of ancestral property.
2. Provided that there has been no family partition deed made before 30th Dec, 2004 then the two married daughter's are deemed as co-parcerners in view of s. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. They are not remainder man etc. They are legal co-parcerners of the ancestral property and can lay a claim for for their such share. There is no limitation bar for the sister to claim their share.
Samarth
(Querist) 01 June 2014
With Due respect -
My query was with respect to limitation.
As far as coparcener is concerned, Was earlier advised that as succession opens in 1991, 2005 amendment doesn't apply. many judgments are cited.
My query was : What is the status wrt Limitation? Which Article applies.
ROHIT SHARMA
(Expert) 02 June 2014
1. I am still not able to comprehend as what exactly is the core of your query.
2. s. 6 of the H.S.Act, 1956 was inserted in 2005. There are more clarification made under this section which restrict the re-partition of an ancestral property if one such family settlement deed was made before 20th Dec, 2004.
3. Still want more information and discussion call this lawyer.
Adv. Rohit Sharma.
(B.Sc. L.L.B. L.l.M.)
(M) : 0-9824047971.
E-mail : lawgate1349@gmail.com
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 02 June 2014
I agree with learned advocate Mr.Rohit Sharma on the issue. The ancestral property, if remains un-partitioned as on the date of the amendment came into effect,. i.e., 1. 1.2005, the daughters, irrespective of their marital status have equal rights to that of their male counter parts in the ancestral properties.
Adverse possession is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession . It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostiles. Simple application of Limitation referred to herein above shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse possession claim.The factum of possession in you issue only goes on to objectively indicate intention to possess the land.Adverse Possession is a right which comes into play not just because someone loses high right to reclaim the property out of continuous and willful neglect but also on account of possessor’s positive intent to dispossess. Therefore, it is important to take into account before stripping somebody of his lawful title, whether there is an adverse possessor worthy and exhibiting more urgent and genuine desire to dispossess and step into the shoes of the paper owner of the property.
In view of foregoing, this property being ancestral in nature, article 65 of limitation may not apply.
