LexRAMIAH versus N. NARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMIAH A v. N. NARA YANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AUGUST IO, 2004 [ASHOK BHAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Limitation Act, 1963 : Article 64-Applicability of-Suit for possession of /and-Filed after 13 years from dispossession-Evidence indicates ouster from possession- C Dismissal of suit by Courts below as barred by /imitation-On appeal, held: Suit was barred by limitation-Where the suit is based on a/legation of plaintiff having been in possession and having subsequently lost the possession either by dispossession or by discontinuance, Article 64 is applicable. Sections 64 and 65-App/icability-Ascertainment of-Held: The applicability is to be ascertained by reference to pleadings. D Section 14-Suit for possession-Filed after 2 years from the date of Court's order in previous litigation, but beyond limitation period from the date of dispossession-During the period of previous litigation, despite E having right to seek possession, no steps taken to get possession-- Entitlement for benefit under Section 14-Held, in the circumstances of the case plaintiff not entitled to the benefit. Respondent filed suit for recovery of possession based on title and F permanent injunction against the appellant on the ground that appel- lant was trying to interfere with his possession. Defence of the appellant was that he was in possession of the suit land having purchased the same, and that the spit ,land was Inam land and that he was registered as Khadim tenant by the loam Abolition Authorities. Trial Court by its order dated 7.4.1971 held that respondent was owner of only 1 acre G 21 gunthas and not the entire land admeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas. However, since the respondent was found to be in possession of the entire land, permanent injunction was granted in his favour. Further appeals by respondent were dismissed and the decree reached finality on 24.11.1982. H 425 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Appellant filed the present suit within 2 years from 24.I 1.1982 for B possession of 1acre21 gunthas land. Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after 13 years from dispossession, since he was dispossessed in 1971. On appeal, High Court confirmed dismissal of the suit upholding the view of trial court. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the suit was not barred by limitation as Article 64 of Limitation Act was not applicable as the suit instituted by the appellant was based on title and not on possession and Article 65 was applicable in the case as per which the suit was within time as the limitation of 12 years commenced from the C date when the possession of the defendant-respondent became adverse to him; and that he was entitled to benefit under Article 14 of the Act D in view of the earlier litigation by the respondent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908) is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or discontinuance of possession. In order to bring a suit within the purview of that article, it must be shown that the suit is in terms as well as in substance based on the allegation of the plaintiff E having been in possession and having subsequently lost the possession either by dispossession or by discontinuance. Article 65 of the Limi- tation Act, 1963 (Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908) on the other hand is a residuary article applying to suits for possession not .. otherwise provided for. Suits based on plaintiffs' title in which there p is no allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone can fall within Article 65. The question whether the article oflimitation applicable to a particular suit is Article 64 or Article 65 has to be decided by reference to pleadings. [429-H; 430-A-C) G 1.2. In the earlier suit instituted by the respondent, appellant had admitted that he was in possession of the suit property up to 1971. The admission of the appellant in that suit indicates his ouster from possession. In the present suit instituted on 8.5.84 by the appellant, he has glossed over this fact. In the circumstances, both the Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the present suit was barred H by limitation. Article 64 is applicable to the present suit. (430-D-EJ RAMJAH v. N.N. REDDY [KAPADIA, J.] 427 Ram Surat Singh and Ors. v. Badri Narain Singh, AIR (1927) A Alla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.