The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that the period of limitation can be said to have been started only when the defendant derived knowledge that his possession over the suit land had been alleged to be an act of encroachment – on the plaintiff’s survey number.
This decision was made while considering an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge in a Civil Appeal, which upheld the judgment and decree dated 1.5.2002, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.
Brief Facts:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for possession and damages making averments that he purchased the subject property by way of a registered sale deed. It has been averred that the defendant/respondent No.1 had encroached upon the said land by encircling it with fencing. The present suit was filed claiming possession and also for the damages on account of loss of paddy. The plaint was dismissed against which the appellant/plaintiff preferred a First Appeal. Learned First Appellate Court found that the suit was not filed within the limitation of 12 years, therefore, the suit was time-barred. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellate Court wrongly reached the conclusion that defendant No.1 had perfected the title on the basis of adverse possession. He argued that only on the basis of long possession i.e. for a period of more than 12 years, without intention to possess the suit land adversely to the title of the plaintiff, when there was no animus possidendi, right of adverse possession could not be established.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that he had been in possession of the land which was purchased by him and he nowhere pleaded that the hostile possession was in the knowledge of the predecessor of the title holder of the suit land.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that defendant No.1 was also not aware of his boundaries. The trial Court assigned various reasons for not accepting the Demarcation Report. However, the Appellate Court, without adverting to the same, relied on such Demarcation Report.
The Court observed that mere long possession of the defendant for a period of more than 12 years without intention to possess the suit land adversely to the title of the true owner and to the latter’s knowledge cannot result in the acquisition of title by prescription. The period of limitation can be said to have been started only when the defendant derived knowledge that his possession over the suit land had been alleged to be an act of encroachment – on the plaintiff’s survey number. The Court said that at the time of said demarcation, it was the duty of the Commissioner to clearly state where such land is situated after Batankan of revenue map for the reason that the plaintiff has purchased the subject property subsequent to the purchase of the defendant No.1
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, disposing of the appeal, held that the matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to hear the same afresh on receipt of a fresh Demarcation Report after Batankan of the map in respect of the land of the plaintiff.
Case Title: The New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mankunwar Ravi & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Case No.:MAC No. 506 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. B. N. Nande
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. N. Prajapati
Picture Source :
