Supreme Court Resolves Article 58 vs. Article 65 Debate Under Limitation Act: “Primary Relief Was for Possession Based on Title, Making Article 65 Applicable; In Suits for Possession Based on Title, the Defendant Must Prove Adverse Possession if Title Is Established”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The Court held that a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows 12 years for the plaintiff to file a suit for possession once the possession becomes adverse. Since the defendants neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession, the plaintiff’s claim was within limitation.

Facts

1. The original plaintiff filed a suit in 2011 seeking a declaration of title and injunction over immovable property, claiming ownership through inheritance.
2. The defendants argued that they had been in possession of the property since 1981-82 based on lawful title, and the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred.
3. The trial court dismissed the suit in 2014, finding that the plaintiff failed to seek the relief of possession despite being declared the titleholder. The trial court concluded that the defendants were in lawful possession.
4. The plaintiff’s legal heirs filed a first appeal in 2014, amending the plaint to include a prayer for possession. The First Appellate Court allowed this amendment in 2018 and decreed the suit, recognizing the plaintiff’s heirs as absolute owners and ordering the defendants to hand over possession.
5. The High Court dismissed the second appeal in 2019, ruling that there was no substantial question of law. It held that the suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the plaintiff was entitled to possession.

Issues

1. Was the suit for possession barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
2. Should the suit be governed by Article 65, which allows a 12-year limitation period for possession based on title?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Barred by Limitation Under Article 58:
   • The petitioners contended that the suit was barred by Article 58, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for declaratory relief.
   • They argued that the plaintiff first became aware of the alleged dispossession in 1981-82, rendering the suit time-barred.
2. Improper Amendment:
   • The prayer for possession was introduced in 2018 during the appellate stage, over 35 years after the defendants claimed possession.
3. Defendant’s Lawful Possession:
   • The defendants claimed that their possession of the property had been lawful since 1981-82 based on valid revenue records.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Applicability of Article 65:
   • The respondents argued that the suit was governed by Article 65, which allows 12 years for filing a claim for possession based on title, starting when possession becomes adverse.
2. Failure to Prove Adverse Possession:
   • The defendants did not plead or prove adverse possession, which requires hostile possession with clear intent to oust the rightful owner.
3. Valid Amendment:
   • The amendment to include the prayer for possession was procedural and permissible under the doctrine of relation back, making it effective from the date of the original filing.

Analysis of the Law

1. Article 58 vs. Article 65 of the Limitation Act:

• Article 58: Governs declaratory suits and provides a three-year limitation period starting from when the right to sue first accrues.
• Article 65: Applies to suits for possession based on title and allows 12 years from when possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
• The Court held that the primary relief in this case was for possession based on title, making Article 65 applicable.

2. Doctrine of Relation Back:

• Amendments to pleadings relate back to the date of the original suit unless explicitly excluded.
• The Court observed that the amendment to include a prayer for possession was valid and effective from the date of the original suit filing.

3. Adverse Possession:

• For adverse possession to be established, the defendant must prove:
  • Possession was hostile to the plaintiff.
  • Possession was continuous and exclusive for the statutory period.
• In this case, the defendants failed to prove adverse possession, and their possession was deemed not adverse.

4. Judicial Precedents:

• The Court cited several precedents emphasizing that possession alone does not establish adverse possession unless accompanied by clear evidence of hostile intent.
• Indira v. Arumugam: Once title is established, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession.
• Pandit Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Appellate courts can allow amendments even at later stages if necessary for justice.

Precedent Analysis

1. Rajpal Singh v. Saroj:
   • In Rajpal Singh, the substantive relief was cancellation of a sale deed, with possession being a consequential relief. The limitation was governed by the primary relief.
   • The Court distinguished the present case, as the primary relief was for possession based on title, not ancillary relief.
2. Government of Kerala v. Joseph:
   • Adverse possession requires clear evidence of hostile possession. Mere long possession is insufficient.
3. Indira v. Arumugam:
   • In suits for possession based on title, the defendant must prove adverse possession if title is established.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Title Established:
   • The plaintiff successfully established title to the property through inheritance and other records.
2. No Adverse Possession Proven:
   • The defendants neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession. Their claim of lawful possession undermined their argument.
3. Timely Amendment:
   • The amendment to include possession was procedural and allowed by appellate courts to prevent injustice.
4. Applicability of Article 65:
   • The suit was governed by Article 65, providing 12 years for recovery of possession based on title, starting from when possession became adverse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that:

1. The suit was within limitation under Article 65.
2. The plaintiff’s legal heirs were entitled to possession.
3. Procedural amendments should not obstruct substantive justice.

Implications

1. Strengthened Plaintiff’s Position:
   • Plaintiffs with valid title cannot be non-suited unless the defendant conclusively proves adverse possession.
2. Clarity on Limitation:
   • Reinforces that suits for possession based on title are governed by Article 65, not Article 58.
3. Flexibility in Procedural Amendments:
   • Encourages courts to prioritize justice over procedural technicalities.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Partial Eviction to Address Bona Fide Need: Balances Landlord’s Right and Tenant’s Hardship in Dispute Over Dairy Farming Premises Under Maharashtra Rent Control Act