1993 (9) TMI 362 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the possession and ownership of 53 kanals 12 marlas of land, adverse possession, prescription of title, and limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Judgment Summary:

1. Possession and Ownership:
The case revolved around the possession and ownership of 53 kanals 12 marlas of land. After the death of Wazira Singh, a division of properties took place, leaving Parsinni and Chinto in possession. The appellants claimed to have remained in possession and enjoyment as owners for over 30 years, excluding the respondents. The trial court found in favor of the appellants, but the appellate court held that the respondents had not lost their title and became owners of the land. The High Court confirmed the appellate decree without considering adverse possession.

2. Adverse Possession and Prescription:
The main question was whether the appellants had perfected their title by prescription. The appellants claimed adverse possession, asserting that they had remained in possession openly and continuously for over 30 years, excluding the respondents. The trial court accepted this claim, stating that the respondents did not prove ownership or shared ownership with the appellants. The possession of the appellants was found to be adverse to the respondents, as evidenced by continuous entries in revenue records showing ownership and enjoyment by the appellants.

3. Limitation under Article 65:
The judgment referred to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a 12-year period for possession of immovable property based on title. The court found that the appellants had perfected their title by prescription within this period, as they openly and continuously possessed the land for over 30 years, excluding the respondents. The suit was held to be barred by limitation under Article 65, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the decrees of the High Court and the appellate court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the decree of the trial court and holding that the appellants had perfected their title to the 53 kanals 12 marlas by prescription. No costs were awarded in this case.