2011 (4) TMI 1517 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit land is in Survey No. 129/55 as claimed by the plaintiffs or in Survey No. 129/64 as claimed by the defendants.
2. Whether the defendants have perfected their title in respect of the suit land by adverse possession.
3. What is the relief that the plaintiffs are entitled to.
4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Whether the absence of a specific prayer for a decree of possession against Defendant No. 2 affects the suit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Location of Suit Land
The High Court framed the issue of whether the suit land is in Survey No. 129/55 as claimed by the plaintiffs or in Survey No. 129/64 as claimed by the defendants. The High Court held that the suit property is situated at Kachcha Tattikhana Sivar village Saikpet, Hyderabad, and not in Survey No. 129/64.

Issue 2: Adverse Possession
The High Court found that the defendants failed to establish their plea of adverse possession. The defendants claimed that Razia Begum, the predecessor-in-title, had perfected her title by adverse possession, but the High Court did not accept this claim.

Issue 3: Relief to Plaintiffs
The High Court concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land. However, this decision was challenged on the grounds that no specific prayer for possession was made against Defendant No. 2 (the predecessor-in-title of the appellants).

Issue 4: Limitation
The appellants argued that the suit was barred by limitation u/s 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. The High Court did not accept this argument, but the Supreme Court found merit in the appellants' claim of long-term possession.

Issue 5: Absence of Specific Prayer Against Defendant No. 2
The Supreme Court noted that there was no specific prayer for a decree of possession against Defendant No. 2 in either the original or amended plaint. The Court emphasized that under Order VII, Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint must specifically state the relief claimed against each defendant. The absence of such a prayer against Defendant No. 2 meant that no relief could be granted against the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was not sustainable in law due to the absence of a specific prayer for possession against Defendant No. 2. The Court also noted the long-term possession of the appellants and their predecessors. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and affirmed the Trial Court's decision, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.