THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2434 · Decided: 10-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2434 : 2024 INSC 518
The State of Punjab and Ors. 
v. 
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh 
(Deceased) Through Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 7379 of 2024)
10 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents was barred 
by limitation; whether the burden of proof of ownership would lie on 
the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession; 
whether the continued name of the Plaintiff/Respondent in the 
revenue records would confer title upon him; whether the plaint 
lacked/deliberately omitted necessary and material particulars to 
surpass the bar of limitation.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Suit for possession barred 
by limitation – Civil Suit filed by deceased Respondent for 
possession of the land in suit in 2001 as they alleged to 
have come to know about construction of the hospital only 
in 2000 – Appellant/State claiming that the land in suit had 
been donated by original owner i.e., father of the Plaintiff, in 
1958 for establishing a Veterinary Hospital and possession 
was delivered – Appellant/State constructed the hospital from 
the funds of the State Government in 1958-1959 and since 
then, the same has been functional: 
Held: Article 65 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates that in a 
suit for possession of immovable property, the period of limitation 
will be twelve years from when the possession of the defendant 
becomes averse to the plaintiff – Fact remains and has been duly 
established from the record that the hospital had been constructed 
on the land belonging to the original owner i.e., father of the 
plaintiff sometime in the year 1958-59 – At that time, the owner of 
the said land was alive, and he did not object to it, which clearly 
indicates that he had donated the land in suit for construction 
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
2435
The State of Punjab and Ors. v.  
Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs.
of Veterinary Hospital – Further, it is evidenced by the letter  
dt 24.04.1981 wherein the Plaintiff had made an enquiry from the 
concerned Tehsildar regarding the exact location of the Veterinary 
Hospital that the Plaintiff was aware of its existence in 1981, if not 
before – If the plaintiff’s case was that it was never donated but 
still the hospital had been constructed, then the plaintiff should 
have instituted a suit for possession within 12 years – Having 
not done so, the suit was clearly barred by time for the relief of 
possession. [Paras 21, 22, 23]
Adverse Possession – Claim of – State could not claim adverse 
possession, not applicable in present case:
Held: The argument of Plaintiff that the State could not claim 
adverse possession is not germane to the present case – It is 
unfortunate that after 43 years, his son filed the suit for possession 
without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief 
of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for 
the said relief also by virtue of Article 58 of Limitation Act – Period 
of limitation being three years. [Para 24]
Practice and Procedure – Plaintiff cannot be allowed to surpass 
limitation by way of vague and clever drafting:
Held: It is evident that the plaintiff purposely drafted/filed a vague 
plaint which lacked the essential details of when the hospital was 
constructed, when the plaintiff became aware of such construction, 
when the right of ownership devolved upon the plaintiff, when 
his father passed away, his letter of 24.04.1981 to the Tehsildar 
etc; the first date and document mentioned in the plaint is of the 
legal notice dated 09.11.2000 – It is nothing but a clear attempt 
by Respondent at surpassing the bar under limitation law for filing 
the suit since the existence of the hospital was a fact well known 
to him since long ago. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
Suit for possession – Burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff:
Held: As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of 
proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging 
the ownership of the person in possession – In view of the clear 
finding that the hospital is functioning on the suit land since 1958, 
the Trial Court as well as the High Court have wrongly shifted 
the proof of ownership on the Appellant, whereas it lay on the 
Respondent by virtue of Section 110. [Paras 30, 31, 32]
2436
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Revenue Record – Entry i

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