Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision on Limitation in Property Dispute: Ghewarchand vs. Mahendra Singh (20 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 829

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a suit for property possession be dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation, even when the facts of the case support the plaintiff’s claim? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent property dispute case. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s decision regarding the limitation period for filing a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction, and possession of a property. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and S. Abdul Nazeer, delivered the judgment, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between Ghewarchand and others (appellants/plaintiffs) and M/s Mahendra Singh and others (respondents/defendants). The appellants filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of their title to the suit property, a permanent injunction against the respondents, and possession of the property. The respondents contested the suit, arguing, among other things, that it was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were the rightful owners of the property and that the suit was filed within the limitation period. However, the High Court of Rajasthan reversed this decision, stating that the suit was time-barred. The High Court held that the suit was essentially for declaration and consequential injunction, and thus governed by a three-year limitation period, which had expired.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, finding that they were the owners of the property, entitled to possession, and that the suit was within the limitation period. The respondents then appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court reasoned that the suit was primarily for declaration and injunction, which are subject to a three-year limitation period, and not for possession, which has a twelve-year limitation period. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 65, which deals with suits for possession of immovable property based on title. Article 65 of the Limitation Act prescribes a limitation period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The Court also considered the nature of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, which included declaration of title, injunction, and possession.

The relevant provision is Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which states:

“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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ (Plaintiffs’) Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their suit was not just for declaration and injunction but also for possession of the suit property.
• They contended that since the suit included a claim for possession, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year limitation period, should apply.
• The appellants asserted that their cause of action arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which eventually led to the attachment of the property on 23.12.1966.
• Therefore, the suit filed on 19.12.1978 was within the 12-year limitation period.

Respondents’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the suit was essentially for declaration and consequential injunction, which are governed by a three-year limitation period.
• They contended that the suit was filed beyond three years from the date of the first cause of action and was therefore barred by limitation.
• The respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court, but their arguments were based on the High Court’s judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the defendants’ first appeal and dismissing the appellants’ suit as barred by time?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The court considered the following:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The Court applied this provision to determine that the suit was within the 12-year limitation period because it included a claim for possession.

✓ Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The Court used this provision to understand the factual background of the case and the events leading to the filing of the suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the suit included a prayer for possession, which made Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in observing that the suit was only for declaration and injunction. The Court also noted that the cause of action arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property, culminating in the attachment order on 23.12.1966, and the suit was filed within 12 years from this date.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the pleadings and the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. The Court noted that the High Court had erred in overlooking the prayer for possession, which was crucial in determining the applicable limitation period. The Court also emphasized that the cause of action arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property, which was well within the 12-year period.

The Supreme Court stated: “In our view, mere perusal of the relief in clause 26 (3) of the plaint quoted in para 5 above would show that the plaintiffs had also prayed for decree of possession of the suit property from the defendants.”

The Supreme Court further stated: “In our opinion, the plaintiffs, therefore, rightly filed the civil suit on 19.12.1978 within 12 years from the date of attachment order dated 23.12.1966.”

The Supreme Court also observed: “In order to decide the question of limitation as to whether the suit is filed within time or not, the Court is mainly required to see the plaint allegations and how the plaintiff has pleaded the accrual of cause of action for filing the suit.”

Key Takeaways

• When a suit includes a claim for possession of immovable property, Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, providing a 12-year limitation period, applies.
• Courts must carefully examine the pleadings and reliefs sought to determine the correct limitation period.
• The cause of action for a suit for possession arises when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s judgment, which had decreed the suit in favor of the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a suit includes a claim for possession of immovable property, the applicable limitation period is 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This clarifies that a suit seeking multiple reliefs, including possession, cannot be treated as merely a suit for declaration and injunction for the purpose of limitation. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of considering the pleadings and reliefs sought in their entirety to determine the correct limitation period, and it has not changed the previous position of law, but has clarified the application of the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. The Court held that the suit was filed within the limitation period as it included a claim for possession, which is governed by a 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This judgment emphasizes the importance of carefully examining the pleadings and reliefs sought in a suit to determine the applicable limitation period.