Limitation For Trying To Regain Title & Recover Possession Of Suit Property By Way Of Seeking Setting Aside Of Sale Deed Would Be 3 Yrs, Not 12 Yrs: SC
The Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation for trying to regain title and recover the possession of the suit property by seeking to get the sale deed set aside would be three years, not twelve years.
The Court dismissed an Appeal challenging the Order of the Karnataka High Court that affirmed the legal heirs of the original plaintiff (Respondents) as the absolute owners of the suit properties. The Bench clarified that ordinarily when a suit is filed for cancellation of Sale Deed and recovery of possession, the same would suggest that the title has already been lost.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “By seeking to get the Sale Deed set aside on the grounds as may have been urged in the plaint, the plaintiff could be said to be trying to regain his title over the suit property and recover the possession. In such circumstances, the period of limitation would be three years and not twelve years.”
Advocate Tarun Kumar Thakur represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale appeared for the Respondents.
The original suit sought a declaration of title and injunction over the disputed properties, wherein the Respondent asserted that her family was absolute the rightful owner of the suit properties. After the Respondent’s death, her legal heirs continued the litigation.
The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, stating that although the Respondent’s title was established, she failed to seek possession of the properties. Subsequently, the legal heirs filed an Appeal, during which they amended the plaint to include a prayer for possession.
The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, allowing the Appeal and decreeing the suit in favour of the Respondent. The High Court later upheld this decision, rejecting the appellants’ arguments regarding limitation and adverse possession.
The Supreme Court pointed out that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited.
The Bench noted that the submission on the part of the Appellants was that the suit would be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and was liable to be dismissed being time barred whereas the submission on the part of the Respondents was that the suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and even on the date when the First Appellate Court permitted the plaint to be amended, the same was well within limitation.
The Court referred to its decision in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa (1961), wherein it was held that “in a suit for declaration with a further relief, the limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further relief. In fact, a suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit. The principle is that the suit for a declaration for a right cannot be held to be barred so long as Right to Property subsist.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mallavva & Anr. v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) By Legal Heirs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1021)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Tarun Kumar Thakur and Abhay Choudhary M; AOR Anuradha Mutatkar
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale; Advocates Parikshith Maliye and Anuradha Bhat; AOR Harisha S.R.
