LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for partition is barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the property is claimed through a female who was the absolute owner.
CASE TYPE: Civil (Partition Suit)
Case Name: Bapusaheb Chimasaheb Naik-Nimbalkar (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. vs. Mahesh Vijaysinha Rajebhosale & Ors.
Judgment Date: 25 April 2017
Introduction
Citation: This case is cited as Bapusaheb Chimasaheb Naik-Nimbalkar (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. vs. Mahesh Vijaysinha Rajebhosale & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3110 of 2012, decided on 25 April 2017.
Judges: The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer.
Can a suit for partition be dismissed if filed more than 12 years after the death of a female who was the absolute owner of the property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. The court considered whether the limitation period under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies when the property is inherited from a female who was the full owner.
The core issue revolved around a dispute over ancestral property. The plaintiffs, sons and daughters of Anandibai, sought partition of land. The defendants, successors of Chimasaheb, claimed the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court had to determine if the suit was filed within the prescribed time.
Case Background
The dispute concerned land in village Jawali, Taluk Phaltan, District Satara. The property was initially inherited by Jagdevrao, who died in 1928. Jagdevrao had three wives: Bhagirathibai, Gajarabai, and Kamalabai. He also had two sons, Shankara Rao and Chimasaheb.
Shankara Rao died on 6 February 1958. His daughter, Shakuntalabai, died on 1 October 1962, unmarried and without children. Anandibai, Shankara Rao’s sister, inherited the property. Anandibai died on 20 January 1977. The plaintiffs, her children, then sought partition of the property.
The plaintiffs claimed the land was ancestral property. They asserted that after Jagdevrao’s death, the names of his sons, Chimasaheb and Shankara Rao, were recorded. After Shankara Rao’s death, his daughter Shakuntalabai’s name was recorded. When Shakuntalabai died, Anandibai inherited the property. The plaintiffs, as Anandibai’s heirs, filed the suit for partition.
The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They argued that Chimasaheb had been in adverse possession of the property since 1962. They also claimed the suit was barred because the property was not included in a previous suit filed by Anandibai.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1928 | Jagdevrao dies. |
| 6 February 1958 | Shankara Rao dies. |
| 1 October 1962 | Shakuntalabai dies. |
| 1963 | Anandibai files a civil suit for declaration of her share in other property. |
| 16 July 1976 | Chimasaheb allegedly denies Anandibai’s right to the property. |
| 20 January 1977 | Anandibai dies. |
| 18 August 1982 | Chimasaheb dies. |
| 1979 | Plaintiffs file a suit for partition and separate possession. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It held that the plaintiffs and defendants were co-owners of the land. The court found that the defendants were not in exclusive possession and that the suit was not barred by limitation or Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The High Court also dismissed the second appeal. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It deals with the limitation period for suits related to immovable property. Article 65 states:
“Article 65: For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Twelve years When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.”
Explanation (b) of Article 65 is particularly relevant. It states:
“(b) Where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to the possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female, the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies;”
The Supreme Court had to interpret whether Explanation (b) applies when the female was the absolute owner of the property. The court also considered Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which deals with the bar on subsequent suits based on the same cause of action.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. They contended that adverse possession began when Shakuntalabai died in 1962. The suit was filed in 1979, which is beyond the 12-year limitation period.
- The appellants also argued that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. They stated that the property should have been included in the earlier suit filed by Anandibai.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that Article 65(b) does not apply because Shakuntalabai was the full owner of the property. They claimed that the limitation period should not start from her death.
- The respondents also contended that the earlier suit was based on a different cause of action. Therefore, the present suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The earlier suit was for declaration of title, while the current suit was for partition.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation |
✓ Suit was barred by Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. ✓ Possession became adverse in 1962 after Shakuntalabai’s death. ✓ Suit filed in 1979 was beyond the 12-year limit. |
✓ Article 65(b) does not apply as Shakuntalabai was the full owner. ✓ Limitation period should not start from her death. |
| Bar under CPC |
✓ Suit barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. ✓ Property should have been included in Anandibai’s earlier suit. |
✓ Earlier suit was based on a different cause of action. ✓ Present suit not barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. ✓ Earlier suit was for declaration of title, current suit for partition. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963?
- Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963? | No | Article 65(b) does not apply when the property is claimed through a female who was the full owner. The limitation period starts from the date of adverse possession, not the date of the female’s death. |
| Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC? | No | The earlier suit was based on a different cause of action. The current suit for partition is based on a different cause of action. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hashmat Begam & Anr. v. Mazhar Husain & Ors. (1888) ILR 10 All. 343 | Allahabad High Court | Followed | The word “entitled” in Explanation (b) to Article 65 means “entitled independently of the right of the Hindu or Muhammadan female”. |
| Ghisa Singh & Anr. v. Gajraj Singh AIR 1916 Oudh 50 | Oudh High Court | Followed | Similar view as in Hashmat Begam. |
| Mohammad Yaqub v. Bijai Lal AIR 1918 Oudh 32 | Oudh High Court | Followed | Similar view as in Hashmat Begam. |
| Zarif un-nisa & Ors. v. Chaudhri Shafiq-uz-zaman & Ors. AIR 1923 Oudh 185 | Oudh High Court | Followed | Similar view as in Hashmat Begam. |
| Malkarjun Mahadev Belure v. Amrita Tukaram Dambare & Ors. AIR 1918 Bom. 142 | Bombay High Court | Followed | Considered provisions of Article 141 of the Limitation Act. |
| Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash (2006) 4 SCC 482 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The case was distinguished as it involved a life interest, unlike the present case where Shakuntalabai was the full owner. |
| Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Kartar Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1858 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The case was distinguished as it involved a life interest, unlike the present case where Shakuntalabai was the full owner. |
| Amar Singh & Ors. v. Sewa Ram & Ors. AIR 1960 Punjab 530 | Punjab High Court | Followed | Full Bench verdict on limited ownership. |
| Harak Singh v. Kailash Singh and Anr. AIR 1958 Pat. 581 | Patna High Court | Followed | Full Bench verdict on limited ownership. |
| Mt. Lukai W/o Katikram and Ors. vs. Niranjan Dayaram and Ors. AIR 1958 MP 160 | Madhya Pradesh High Court | Followed | Full Bench verdict on limited ownership. |
| State of M.P. v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 2 SCC 288 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Rule 2 Order 2 CPC does not apply if the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different. |
| State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. (1996) 1 SCC 735 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | When the first suit was to enforce a bank guarantee, the second suit for damages was not barred. |
| Bengal Waterproof Ltd. v. Bombay Waterproof Mfg. Co. (1997) 1 SCC 99 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Cause of actions in two suits were different. |
| Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand (1995) 6 SCC 733 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Essential requirement for applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC is to establish the identity of causes of action. |
| Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal AIR 1964 SC 1810 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Essential requirement for applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC is to establish the identity of causes of action. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Suit was barred by Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. | Rejected. The court held that Article 65(b) does not apply when the property is claimed through a female who was the full owner. |
| Possession became adverse in 1962 after Shakuntalabai’s death. | Rejected. The court held that the starting point of limitation was not the death of Shakuntalabai as she was the full owner. |
| Suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of CPC. | Rejected. The court found that the previous suit and the current suit had different causes of action. |
The Supreme Court analyzed the authorities and submissions and made the following observations:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hashmat Begam & Anr. v. Mazhar Husain & Ors. (1888) ILR 10 All. 343 | The court agreed with the view that the word “entitled” in Explanation (b) to Article 65 means “entitled independently of the right of the Hindu or Muhammadan female”. |
| Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash (2006) 4 SCC 482 | The court distinguished this case because it involved a life interest, whereas Shakuntalabai was the full owner. |
| Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Kartar Singh & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 1858 | The court distinguished this case because it involved a life interest, whereas Shakuntalabai was the full owner. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized several key points in its reasoning. The court focused on the fact that Shakuntalabai was the absolute owner of the property. This meant that the limitation period under Article 65(b) did not apply. The court also noted that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the property. The court also highlighted that the previous suit was based on a different cause of action.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Shakuntalabai was the full owner of the property. | 40% |
| Article 65(b) does not apply to full owners. | 30% |
| Plaintiffs were in joint possession. | 20% |
| Previous suit had a different cause of action. | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal interpretation and factual analysis. The court rejected the argument that the suit was barred by limitation. It also rejected the argument that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
The court stated, “In the instant case, Shakuntalabai, daughter of Shankara Rao became absolute owner of the property on 6.2.1958 and on her death on 1.10.1962, the right accrued to Anandibai on the basis of inheritance made from Shakuntalabai who was the owner of the ½ share in question.”
The court further noted, “When the property is claimed from a woman, Hindu or Mohammedan, who was the full owner, it could not be said that Anandibai or the plaintiffs became entitled to the property independently of the rights of female i.e. Shakuntalabai.”
The court also observed, “In the instant case possession never became adverse to the plaintiffs. There is concurrent finding recorded that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the disputed land on the date of filing of the suit.”
Key Takeaways
- Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply when the property is inherited from a female who was the absolute owner.
- The limitation period for a partition suit in such cases starts from the date of adverse possession, not from the date of the female’s death.
- A subsequent suit is not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC if the cause of action is different from the previous suit.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Supreme Court Bar Association Welfare Trust within two months.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply when the property is inherited from a female who was the absolute owner. This clarifies the interpretation of the provision and provides guidance for future cases involving similar facts. This judgment reinforces that the limitation period starts from the date of adverse possession and not the death of the female owner in cases where the female was the full owner of the property.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ decisions. The court clarified that Article 65(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply when the property is inherited from a female who was the absolute owner. The court also held that the suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. This judgment provides important guidance on limitation periods in partition suits and the interpretation of Article 65(b).