2015 (1) TMI 1495 - HC - Indian Laws

Prayer for a decree of possession of land and cancellation of the sale deed - plaintiff can be non-suited on the ground of limitation in a suit for possession or not - dismissal of earlier suit filed by Ranjit Singh son of Sohan Singh (respondent in the instant appeal) through his wife Satwinder Kaur will operate as res judicata? - HELD THAT - Both the Courts below had given a categorical finding that the sale deed was a result of impersonation and the plaintiff had not sold the land. The defendant chose not to file any appeal. The order against him had become final. The sale deed had been held to be invalid. So far as the share of the plaintiff was concerned it was necessary to seek a declaration that the sale deed was invalid. The fact that the plaintiff has sought a declaration with respect to the sale deed is of no consequence. The possession of the property has been taken by the defendant pursuant to a void document and he had no title and has no right to remain in possession. Since the possession has been taken on the basis of void document Article 65 of the Limitation Act would apply and the limitation to file a suit would be 12 years. In AJUDH RAJ AND ORS. VERSUS MOTI S/O MUSSADI 1991 (5) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eyes of law and is not necessary to set it aside, and such a suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff is claiming possession of the property on the basis that he was a co-owner. By way of a registered sale deed, the property had been sold to the defendant by the brother of the plaintiff by impersonation. The possession of the defendant is not authorized. The plaintiff as owner is seeking to recover possession from the defendant. The defendant had relied upon the sale deed as it purported to create some right in him. The document has been held to be void and non-est in the eyes of law. The defendant had raised a plea of adverse possession and an issue was framed but at the time of arguments the plea was not pressed but a finding was recorded against the defendant. The suit had been filed within 12 years and it is in time, therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below on the point of limitation is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suit challenging judgment and decree of lower courts.
2. Ownership dispute over land in village Tibba.
3. Allegation of false sale deed by defendant.
4. Plaintiff's claim for possession and cancellation of sale deed.
5. Defendant's defense of being a bonafide purchaser.
6. Plea of limitation raised by defendant.
7. Applicability of Article 59 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
8. Appeal against dismissal based on limitation and res judicata.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The plaintiff filed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit by lower courts, claiming ownership to 1/3rd share in disputed land in village Tibba. Allegations of a false sale deed by the defendant were central to the case.

Issue 2:
The plaintiff sought possession and cancellation of the sale deed, alleging that the defendant, in connivance with others, fabricated the deed. The plaintiff's claim was based on being the rightful owner and not having sold the land.

Issue 3:
The defendant contended that the land was purchased for consideration and raised a plea of being a bonafide purchaser. The defendant also raised the defense of adverse possession and challenged the suit's limitation period.

Issue 4:
The trial court found the sale deed void due to impersonation, but the suit was dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court held that the suit should have been filed within three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of the deed.

Issue 5:
The plaintiff's appeal was also dismissed on the grounds of limitation. However, the plaintiff argued that the suit was based on title, not just the sale deed, and thus, the 12-year limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act should apply.

Issue 6:
The court analyzed the application of Article 59 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It was concluded that since the sale deed was void ab initio, the suit for possession was not dependent on its cancellation, and the 12-year limitation period was applicable.

Issue 7:
The court emphasized that the relief of possession was based on the plaintiff's title, not the sale deed, which was deemed void. The plaintiff's claim for possession was upheld, and the defendant's plea of adverse possession was rejected.

Issue 8:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings against the plaintiff on various issues and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The court clarified the correct application of the Limitation Act and awarded the plaintiff the relief sought.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, findings, and conclusions of the judgment, addressing each issue comprehensively and preserving the legal nuances of the case.