VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR. versus RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 13-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 326 : 2024 INSC 109
Vasantha (Dead) Thr. Lr. 
v. 
Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs.
(Civil Appeal No. 3854 of 2014)
13 February 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 
1947, when a mother ‘T’ transferred property by executing First 
Settlement Deed in one form to her two sons and in another, to her 
daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband ‘G’ 
filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The issues arise 
for consideration are (i) Whether G’s suit for declaration based on 
the First Settlement Deed, eventually filed in the year 1993 barred 
by limitation; (ii) Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter was 
maintainable in view of s.34 of the SRA, 1963.
Headnotes
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.27, Arts.58 and 65 – Specific Relief 
Act, 1963 – s.34 – After First Settlement Deed, two sons 
of T executed a second settlement deed dated 31.07.1952 
reverting the interest in properties back to their mother-T 
– Thereafter, T executed a third Settlement Deed dated 
18.08.1952 bequeathing absolute interest in such properties 
only in favour of two sons – G filed a suit praying for a 
declaration as owner of the property as sole heir of T’s 
daughter in terms of First Settlement Deed – Trial Court 
held that G admitted execution of Second Settlement Deed 
and possession was handed over to T – The suit filed was 
barred by limitation – First Appellate Court confirmed the 
trial Court judgment – However, the High Court held that G 
was entitled to half share a property according to the First 
Settlement Deed – Propriety:
Held: If the period of limitation is to run from the date of the Second 
Settlement Deed, then the rights should be extinguished in 1964 
– If the same were to run from either 1974 (when M, younger son 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
327
Vasantha (Dead) Thr. Lr. v. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs.
of T executed settlement deed in favour of his adopted daughter 
V) or 1976 (when another deed was executed by M in favour of 
his wife P), then after 1986 or 1988 respectively, G had no right 
in the property on the plea of adverse possession – It is settled 
that a reversioner ordinarily must file a suit for possession within 
12 years from the death of the limited heir or widow – That metric 
being applied to the instant facts, it is after the death of P, that the 
reversioner, or in this case the heir of the reversioner G ought to 
have filed the suit – The suit, the subject matter of appeal before 
this Court is a suit for declaration simpliciter and not possession 
– So, the possession still rests with heir of P – The 12 year period 
expired in 2016 with death of P in the year 2004 – Therefore, 
the suit filed in 1993 is barred by limitation – Also, Part III of the 
Schedule to the Limitation Act details the time period within which the 
declarations may be sought for – Art.58 of the Limitation Act governs 
the present dispute – In the instant case, the suit for declaration 
was filed in 1993 – This implies that the cause of action to seek 
any other declaration i.e. a declaration of G in the property, should 
have arisen only in the year 1990 – There is nothing on record 
to show any cause of action having arisen at this point in time, 
much less within the stipulated period of three years – As far as 
the maintainability of suit for declaration simpliciter in view of s.34 
of SRA is concerned, in view of the proviso to s.34, the suit of the 
plaintiff-G could not have been decreed since the plaintiff sought 
for mere declaration without the consequential relief of recovery 
of possession – On a perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the 
plaintiff was aware that the appellant-V herein was in possession 
of the suit property and therefore it was incumbent upon him to 
seek the relief which follows – It is also noted that after the death 
of the life-estate holder-P in 2004, there was no attempt made 
by the original plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek the relief of 
recovery of possession – Thus, the impugned judgment fails on 
both limitation and maintainability of suit – Judgment of the trial 
Court and First Appellate Court restored. [Paras 16, 17, 23, 26, 33]
Adverse Possession – Claim of:
Held: Person who claims adverse possession should show : (a) 
on what date he came into possession; (b) what was the nature of 
his possession; (c) whether the factum of possession w

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