PARSINNI (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. versus SUKHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 15-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PARSINNI (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. 
v. 
SUKHI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, J.T.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 : Art. 63 of the Schedul~Adverse posses-
sion-Pe1fecting title by prescription-Suit filed thereafter questioning 
titl~Whether baJTed. 
On the death of 'W' there was a division of his properties and 53 
kanals 12 marlas of land was left in the possession and enjoyment of his 
A 
B 
c 
two unmarried daughters, till their marriage or death whichever was 
earlier. After their marriage, their brothers, the Respondents, who had the 
right to claim the lands did not even attempt to do so. The appellants 
continued to remain in possession and enjoyment thereof to the exclusion D 
of the respondents for well over thirty years. Thereafter the Respondents 
filed a suit claiming possession of the said land. The trial Court dismissed 
the suit as having barred by limitation. The appellate court reversed the 
decree. The High Court confirmed the reversal. 
Aggrieved against the High Court's judgment, appellants preferred 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. By Art. 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. 1963, F 
for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, 
12 years' period beings to run when the possession of the defendant 
becomes adverse to the plaintiff. [318-C] 
1.2. In the instant case the demise of their father, when mutation was 
effected and sanctioned by the authorities, the daughters came into pos-
G 
session of 53 kanals 12 marlas of the suit property. They, being unmarried 
minor daughters, under law they were entitled to maintenance till they were 
married, and in lieu thereof the property was given and they remained in 
possession and enjoyment of the lands. After their marriage, the respon-
dents had the right to claim possession from the appellants but they did H 
315 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
not do so. On the other hand the appellants remained in possession and 
enjoyment witho 1t any let or hindrance; they continuous entries in revenue 
records who them as owners. There was no attempt to take possession of 
the land by the respondents. [318-C-F] 
2. Possession is plima facie evidence of title. Party claiming adverse 
B possession must prove that his possession must be "nee vinee claim nee 
preemio" i.e. peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be ade-
quate, in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession 
is adverse to the true owner. When the appellants claimed title to the suit 
lands it is sufficient for them to show that their possession is over and 
C without any attempt at concealment so that the respondents against whom 
time is running, ought, if to exercise due vigilance to be aware of what is 
happening. The possession of the appellants was adverse to the respondents 
inasmuch as the respondents ever since the marriage of the first appellant 
and her sister continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the 
property in derogation of the right, title and interest hitherto held by the 
D 
E 
respondents. The entries in the revenue records continuously for 30 years 
would corroborate their pleas of adverse possession and militates against 
the claim of the title of the respondents. The suit was filed in 1963 asserting 
their rights as owners for the first time by which date the appellants have 
perfected their titles by prescription. Therefore, the suit is barred by limita-
tion under Art. 65 of the Schedule to the Act. [319-C-F; 320-B, C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 114 of 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.82 of the Punjab & 
F 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1822/73. 
V.C. Mahajan and Ms. S. Janani for the Appellants. 
K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. The appellants/defendants' appeal by special 
leave arises against the judgment and decree of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1822 of 1973 dated Sept. 21, 
1982. The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title to and for 
H possession of 53 kanals 12 marlas from the appellants. The trial court in 
PARSINN! v. SUKHI [RAMASWAMY, J.] 
317 
File No. 40 dismissed the suit. The Addi. District Judge, Barnala reversed A 
the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit in Civil Appeal No. 121 
of 1965 by judgment and decree dated November 28, 1973

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.