Summary
The Supreme Court held that a suit for declaration of title in which a prayer for recovery of possession was added by amendment at the first appellate stage is governed by Article 65, not Article 58, of the Limitation Act, 1963; since the plaintiff's title was established and the defendants never pleaded or proved adverse possession, the suit for possession based on title was within limitation.
Issues
- Whether a suit for declaration of title, amended at the first appellate stage to seek recovery of possession, is governed by Article 58 (three years) or Article 65 (twelve years) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the suit for possession, as per the amended plaint, was within limitation where the defendants had been in possession and recorded in revenue records since 1981-82 but had not pleaded adverse possession.
Provisions considered
- Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963A suit for possession of immovable property based on title may be filed within twelve years from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff proves title, she cannot be non-suited unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period; this Article governed the amended suit. (¶¶ 17, 18, 31, 33)
- Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963The three-year period for any other declaration was held inapplicable: in a suit for declaration with further relief, limitation follows the Article governing the further relief, and a declaration of title is not barred while the right to the property subsists. Khatri Hotels, which construed only Article 58, was distinguished. (¶¶ 16, 21, 32, 34)
- Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963Set out as the residuary three-year Article for suits not otherwise provided for, as part of the scheme the Court read in deciding which Article applied. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- Sections 3(1) and 27, Limitation Act, 1963Section 3(1) requires dismissal of a time-barred suit even if limitation is not pleaded; Section 27 extinguishes the right to property on expiry of the period for a suit for possession. Read as the framework for testing the amended suit. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 142, Limitation Act, 1908Under the old Article a plaintiff suing on title had to prove possession within twelve years of suit; the appellants' argument wrongly assumed this position, which Article 65 of the 1963 Act fundamentally changed by shifting the burden to the defendant to prove adverse possession. (¶¶ 18, 31, 33)
Held
- An appellate court may permit amendment of pleadings, including to add a new relief, applying the usual principles; procedure is a handmaid of justice. As a general rule, an amendment should be declined if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be time-barred on the date of the application (Revajeetu Builders), and an amendment ordinarily relates back to the date of the suit unless the court directs otherwise. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Where several reliefs are claimed, limitation is that of the main relief. A suit for declaration with a further relief is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief, and a suit for declaration of title is not barred so long as the right to the property subsists. (¶¶ 31, 32)
- Under Article 65 of the 1963 Act, once the plaintiff establishes title, the burden is on the defendant to prove adverse possession; mere long possession is not adverse possession without an overt assertion of hostile title. As the defendants never pleaded adverse possession, the amended suit for possession based on title was within limitation. (¶¶ 9, 18, 31, 33)
- Rajpal Singh v. Saroj, where limitation for a composite suit for cancellation of a sale deed and possession was reckoned from the substantive relief of cancellation, does not apply: such a suit presupposes that the plaintiff's title has been lost and is sought to be regained, whereas here the plaintiff's title subsisted. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38)
- The Court's examination was confined by its notice order to limitation of the suit for possession under the amended plaint; the concurrent finding of the plaintiff's title was not reopened. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment affirming the first appellate decree for declaration of title and possession upheld.