In a judgment that stresses the practical consequences of long inaction, the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a second appeal by plaintiffs who claimed title and possession over a small parcel of land bought in 1967. Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh concluded that the plaintiffs’ title, though originally acquired by registered sale deed, was extinguished when they failed to take possession for more than a dozen years.
The dispute began with a registered sale dated January 19, 1967. The plaintiffs said they purchased 0.28 acres in village Sakrali from one Sonsai and had their names recorded in Sansodhan Panji in 1968. The defendants countered that Sonsai never delivered possession and remained the occupant until his death, after which his heirs, the defendants, continued to hold the land and had the entry in revenue records.
At trial the original sale deed was found to be torn and unclear on parcel details, and the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. On appeal the plaintiffs obtained and produced a certified copy of the registered sale deed. The appellate court accepted that a valid sale had occurred but found strong, consistent evidence that Sonsai and thereafter his legal heirs remained in uninterrupted possession of the land right up to the date the suit was filed in 1995.
That factual finding brought the Limitation Act into play. The High Court relied on Article 65, which requires a title-based suit for possession of immovable property to be filed within 12 years of the date on which the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Because the vendee never obtained possession and the seller’s continued possession was recorded in revenue records, the Court held that the defendants’ possession was adverse from the moment of sale. Under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the right to property is extinguished when the prescribed period for bringing suit expires. Since the plaintiffs waited roughly 28 years from sale and 18 years from the start of the defendants’ recorded possession before suing, the Court concluded their title had been extinguished and affirmed the dismissal of the suit.
The judgment is a clear reminder that a registered sale deed alone will not protect a buyer who fails to assert possession within the statutory period. Where ownership transfers on paper but the transferee does not dispossess the transferor, the law can treat the transferor’s ongoing, recorded possession as adverse triggering the limitation clock and, ultimately, extinguishing the transferee’s right. No costs were awarded to either side. A decree will be drawn in accordance with the dismissal.
Case Title : Resham Lal and Ors. vs. Gosai Ram and Ors. (17.07.2007)
Relevant Section:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – Section 27
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLI Rule 27; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27
=====
सीमा अधिनियम – समयसीमा समाप्त (Time Barred)
धारा 27 और अनुच्छेद 65, सीमा अधिनियम, 1963
अपीलकर्ताओं ने स्वामित्व व कब्जे के अधिकार हेतु मूल बिक्री विलेख के आधार पर दीवानी न्यायालय में वाद दायर किया, जिसे ट्रायल कोर्ट ने खारिज कर दिया। अपीलकर्ताओं ने प्रथम अपील दायर करते हुए बिक्री विलेख की प्रमाणित प्रति प्रस्तुत करने हेतु आवेदन किया, जो स्वीकार कर लिया गया। अपीलीय न्यायालय ने यह माना कि बिक्री विलेख के माध्यम से अपीलकर्ताओं ने वाद भूमि का स्वामित्व प्राप्त किया था, किंतु उनके द्वारा दीर्घकालीन निष्क्रियता के कारण वह स्वामित्व समाप्त हो गया और वाद सीमा-निर्धारित समय से परे (time barred) हो गया।
प्रथम अपील भी निरस्त कर दी गई। इस पर अपीलकर्ताओं ने द्वितीय अपील दायर की।
प्रश्न: क्या अपीलकर्ताओं का स्वामित्व उनकी निष्क्रियता के कारण समाप्त हो गया?
निर्णय: अनुच्छेद 65 के अनुसार यदि कोई व्यक्ति बारह वर्ष तक किसी संपत्ति पर निरंतर कब्जा रखता है, तो उसका कब्जा उस संपत्ति के स्वामी के अधिकार के प्रतिकूल (adverse) हो जाता है। इस मामले में प्रतिवादीगण का नाम लगातार 18 वर्षों तक राजस्व अभिलेखों में दर्ज रहा। अपीलकर्ताओं ने सीमा अधिनियम द्वारा निर्धारित समयावधि में वाद दायर नहीं किया, अतः उनका संपत्ति पर कोई अधिकार नहीं बचा। धारा 27 के अनुसार, जब निर्धारित समय समाप्त हो जाता है, तो न केवल दावा (remedy) समाप्त होता है, बल्कि स्वामित्व (title) भी कानूनी रूप से समाप्त हो जाता है।
निचली अपीलीय अदालत ने मामले का सही निर्णय किया। कोई विधिक त्रुटि नहीं पाई गई।
परिणाम: अपील निरस्त।
