Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Rasala vs Sultan on 7 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033875
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135 RSA-2331-1988 (O&M)
Daate of Decision: 07.03.2024.
RASOOLA AND OTHERS .....A
APPELLANTS
VS
SULTAN AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent
Nos. 14,15,21,22,26,27,28,39,43, 56,59,67 and 69.
******
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL)
1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendant assails the
correctness of judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court,
which in turn, has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court. The party shall be referred to by their status in the suit.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The plaintiff filed a
suit for grant of decree of declaration and possession claiming that the suit
property has come to their share in the partition proceedings which resulted
in instrument of partition on 23.08.1972 issued by Assistant Collector First
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033875
RSA-2331-1988 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:033875
Grade. The defendant while contesting the suit claimed that the suit property
cannot be partitioned and the instrument of partition has been obtained at
their back. The trial Court decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff,
however, dismissed the suit on the ground that it was filed beyond the period
of 12 years from the date of issuance of the instrument of the partition.
3. In the first appeal, the First Appellate Court has held that the
suit was filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in Article 65 of
the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook along
with requisitioned record of the trial Court which is available on the website.
5. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
suit was filed on 31.12.1984, whereas the instrument of partition was issued
on 23.08.1972. Hence, the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of
limitation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent
submits that defendant has never claimed that they have become owners of
the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. He submits that the
suit of the plaintiff is based on title, and therefore, the period of limitation
will begin to run when the defendant claimed adverse possession.
7. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel
representing the parties. For the sake of clarity Article 65 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 is extracted hereunder:
"Description of suit Period of Time from
limitation which period
begins to run
"65. For possession of immovable property Twelve years When the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033875
RSA-2331-1988 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:033875
or any interest therein based on title. possession of
the defendant
Explanation.--For the purposes of this
becomes
article-- adverse to the
plaintiff.
(a)where the suit is by a remainderman, a
reversioner (other than a landlord) or a
devisee, the possession of the defendant
shall be deemed to become adverse only
when the estate of the remainderman,
reversioner or devisee, as the case may be,
falls into possession;
(b) where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim
entitled to the possession of immovable
property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim
female, the possession of the defendant shall
be deemed to become adverse only when the
female dies;
(c)where the suit is by a purchaser at a sale
in execution of a decree when the judgment
debtor was out of possession at the date of
the sale, the purchaser shall be deemed to be
a representative of the judgment-debtor who
was out of possession."
8. From the careful reading of Article 65, it is evident that the
limitation period for filing a suit for possession of property based on title
shall begin to run from the date where possession of the defendant becomes
adverse to the plaintiff. In this case the defendants have failed to prove when
their possession became adverse to the plaintiff.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:033875
RSA-2331-1988 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:033875
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, there is no error in
the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal
stands dismissed.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
07.03.2024
pry
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
