Recover title within 3 years, not in 12 years
The period of limitation for trying to regain title and recover the possession of the suit property by seeking to get the sale deed set aside would be three years, but not twelve years, says the Supreme Court (SC) in its judgement in Mallavva & Anr. v Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) By Legal Heirs & Ors. [ 2024 INSC 1021.
In declaration of title no limitation
The limitation period in a suit typically follows the main relief. That does not apply when the main relief is a declaration of title, as there is no limitation for such a declaration. In such a case, the limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief sought.
Recovery of possession should be within 12 years
Therefore, the SC says that when along with a relief for declaration of title, a relief for possession is also claimed, then the limitation period would be governed by the Article in the Limitation Act governing the possession of immovable property based on title.
A suit for a declaration of title to immovable property would not be barred so long as the right to such a property continues and subsists. When such right continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would be a continuing right and there would be no limitation for such a suit.
Issue was whether the prayer to be in 3 years or 12 years
In this case, the trial court dismissed the suit, which was filed in 2011, in 2014, despite recognizing the plaintiff’s ownership, due to the absence of a prayer for possession. The Trial Court ruled that the case was barred under Article 58, asserting that the prayer for declaration should have been filed within three years of the alleged wrongful possession.
The First Appellate Court allowed the amendment and reversed the Trial Court’s judgment, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff’s heirs. The First Appellate Court applied Article 65, granting the plaintiffs twelve years to claim possession based on title, unless the defendants could prove adverse possession.
The defendants’ Second Appeal to the High Court was dismissed, prompting them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
SC considered whether the amendment was within limitation
The SC in this appeal considered the question of whether the plaintiffs’ original suit, amended at the first appeal stage to seek possession of the suit property, was time-barred. Specifically, the question was whether the suit fell under Article 58 or Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Recovery of possession in 12 yrs but setting aside tittle in 3 yrs
The SC affirmed the High Court’s decision, and says that the relief for possession of the immovable property based on title would be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act due to non-applicability of the limitation period to the main suit seeking relief of a declaration of title.
But when the suit is for setting aside the Sale Deed, the plaintiff could be trying to regain his title over the suit property and recover the possession. In such circumstances, the period of limitation would be three years and not twelve years.
The SC referred to its judgement in C. Mohammad Yunus v Syed Unnissa [1961 AIR 808].
References
- Mallavva & Anr. v Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) By Legal Heirs & Ors. [ 2024 INSC 1021]
- C. Mohammad Yunus v Syed Unnissa [1961 AIR 808].
