Hi§H (EQURT QF QHHATT§SGE§RH K? £§LA$§3L§R Sinaie Eenca : Hgn’b§e Shr§ Baa; Rassaheb Deshmukh‘ J sesamé AweaE §\§a.64£§f29(93 Re5hamia! and another \iemus r Gosai Ram and 5 othefs JUDGMENT Post for f7 437-2067 y i Sd/- Judge Dilip Raosaheb DeshtrrIElilil: ‘ HIGH COUQT O? CHHATT!5GARH. BELASPUR Eafme: Hon‘bie $hri miip Raesaheb $es‘nmmkh, J.‘ She A.N.Bhakta. Shri H.$.?atei and $hr§ AKPa’aead, counseE for the appeélants. Sbri Vimalesh Bajaai course! for responden?s No 1 +0 5. Shrui Akhii Agrawai, ’PL. fer the $t ielrespondent No.8 J U § G M E N “? / // (Deliveredori this 17 *1 day of Juiy, 2Q07l// Secondlgypeai §Lg§40 of 21393 APPELLAN"SI : 1. Re5ham La! aiias Badri Prasad, Son of r FwdNTH—‘FS . Shri Mcii§aL aged abau‘t 48 years. 2. Krishna Lai, Son of Sm Mdiiai, aged abaué §5 year‘s. (Both ewe resident of viiiage : Bed§ Kona, ’ Tahsii : Dabhra, Désmct : Janjgir — Chamsa (’CG.) :" K Verws RESPONDENT$l : 1. Gosa§ Ram, Son e? $hri Sonsai aged EFENDANTS - abaut 38 years. ‘ 2. Dharam, Son of Shri Sonsa§, aged abou'z 32 yeeLs. 3, B§sahu, son of Shri Sonsai aged about 28 yeare (Deieted) Sukma’i, Widow of Sonsai, aged about 55 years 5. Sarkram, Sen of Jcgiram, aged about 42 years (De!eted) (Ali are resident of Vi!!age : Sakhroii, Tahs§i : Dabhra, D§s€rict1 Janj'gif *- Champa (C.G.) 1‘ J 6. State sf Chhatgisgarh, ihrough : Disti’ict Colieeior. Jam'gir — Champa, Distt : Janggir — Champa (CG). MEMQRANDUW! GE $EGDN§ AP?EAL UNDER $§GTIGN 190 GF THE caBE GF saViL PRQC§DURE Present En this second appea! by the appenantsfwaintiffs, the judgmem and c3ecree dated 06.09.2003 passed by the Additéona! 9istr%ct Judge; $92k?) in CM! Appea! Ne. 24-A of 1998 is under chai!enge whereby the anneai was dismissed whiie affirming the §udgment and decree dated 29.0§.1998 passed in CM! Sim No. 116-A o:f 95 by CM? Judge Ciassét Saki, whereby khe plaintiffs’ suit €93" dec§ara$ion of we and possess§on 0f the em? land was dism§ssed. 2 . The apeeiiants/93aint§§fs had pieadeé that they had purchased !and ,KhNo. 433/1 area 0.28 actes (hereinafter refen’ed to as the ‘suit iand} s§tuated in viiiage Sakrali, Tahsi§ Dabhm, fmm one Sonsai vide ¥eg§stered sahe deed 19.Q1.1967 for a cons§deyaiéon ef Rs.300/— and had. obtainee pessession thereoi The name of the apne3!antsinlain€iffs was eniefed as E owners 9f the sei: $and in Seasodhas Panji No.550 on 14.69.?968. m $94, the appe5!ants/p!aintiffs x‘earnt‘ that she! death of Sonsei the respondents/defendants had got their name mutated over the suit iand. The appiica‘cion for mutation feed by the piaintiifs was rejected by the Revenue Court 0h 30.06.95. ?he respondents/defendants had unauthorisedty cut the crops cf the suit iand. On these ptemises, the plaintiffs prayed to! decimation of the titie, permanent injunction and mesne prefits and in the alternative prayed for the reiief of possession it it was held that they were not in possession of the suit iand on the date of the suit. 3. The respondentsldefendants denied the isteadings in toto white eleading that Sonsai had nevei' executed a sate deed in favour of the 140 appeiEan€slpiaintiffs and had never de!ivered possession thefecaf. Dur§ng his lifetime, Sonsai and thereafker the respcndents/defendants were in x uninterrupted possesshn of the suitland. Thus, from 19.01 .195? ti” the deie 0f su§t Le“ $7.08.?995, the appe§an€slp§aimiff$ were mt iz‘a pcssessieh Lef the suit ‘and and therefore, not eniifséed £0 any re!§ef. 4‘ The learned tria! Judge recorded a- funding that the origiaa! sake d‘ee‘d EX.P.3 produced by' the praintiffs was torn arld did nor shew the Khasra Number or area of the suit tend, which was purchased by the pteintiz’fs from S‘onsai and was therefore not proved. tt was a§so hetd that Sonsai was continuou32y in possession of the suit iand aha? after his death AIme defendants were in continuous possession thereof as recorded in the revenue records. Thus, since the piaintitfs had faited to ptove titte over the suit tend, they were not entitled to any reiiet. Consequentiy, the suit was dismissed. 5r The appetiantlpQttts preferred first appeai being No.24-A of 98 im and moved an eppiication under Order 4t Ruie 2? C.P.C. for tiiing certitied copy of the sate deed 19.01.1967 executed by Sonsai in favour of the pieintitts and aiso the certified copy of the Sansodhan Penji wherein the name of appeiiantsipiaintitfs had been mutated. This apgiication was aiiowed since not opposed. The appetiate Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the piaintitfs and the certified copy of the sate deed 19.01.1967. heid that it was proved that the appeiiants/piaintifts had purchased the suit iand tram Sonsai on 19.01 .1967 vide sate deed EX.P.3. it. however, recorded a finding that there was oven/tineirning evidence orai m. «r ecu l/H as weH as decumentary to shew that a‘i n0 pow: of €§me Sonsai had parted with possession of the suit mnd and after his death, the respOhdents/defenéants aiso continued m uninterrupéed possession of the same. !i: was held that a!though the piaintms acquia'ed the tithe Gver tha sui: iand by virtue of sa!e deed dated 19.61.1967, the same was extinguished due to compiete inaction of the plaintigs from 19.01 .1967 tiii 1?.08.‘=9§5 §.e. the date of filing of the suit On these premises, me apgegete Cow? d§smissed t¥2e appeai. Shri A.N;Bhakta, Kearned counse! for the appe!!ems/p%aint§ff$ argued that the !o‘wef appeuate Court was justhied in reversing the fméEng of the ma! Court regarding acquisition of tme over the suit Sand by the appe§$antsldefendants throegh sa§e deed EX.P.3 dated 19.0? .1967 and ihe ore! evidence e? Mithu P‘W2 also proved the? the appeuan‘gefpiaintiffs were in possessien of Ehe suit rand from €§1e daie of safe by Sonsai. Or: the ether hand, Shri Vimafesh Bajpai: ieamed counsef for the reepondems argued that there is overwhelming evidence on record to show iizet Soneai did nof part wif'n the poseession of the suit land at any poini of time. Bering his iife time, Sonsai and thereafter the respondents/defendants were continuousiy in poseession of the suit iand which was also recorded in the Khasra Penchshaia, therefore: sihce the ewner sonsai and thereafter his iegai heirs i.e. the respondehtsldefendants were in continuous possession of the suit iahd for over 12 years ahd their continuous possession was aiso recorded in revenue records, the title, if any: acquired by the appeiienfsfdefendants by virtue of saie deed dated 19.9‘iii%7 had heeh ‘ extihguished due to inaction of the i 6‘ V aeeeliantslpiaintiffs for over 18 years i.e. from 1.991.196? tit! the date of the sut Le. 31031995. 7. The fo!!ow¥ng substantial questéons of iaw arises fer cietermmatbn in‘ this appeak "A. Whether the §ower appeHate Ceud was justified in reversing the fmding recorded by the trial Court that zhe sake ef suit land by Sonsai in favour of the piainti€€s was not proved? V» B. Whether the finding recorded by the lower apaoellate Court that the suit, having not been instituted within 12 years from 19.01‘.1957 Le. the date of purchasing suit iend from Son Sat wae not maintainabie, is correct?” '// 8. Having considered the rive! submissions, i have perused the record. The appiication tiled by appeiiants/piaintitis under Order 4’! Ruie 27 C.P.C. for tiiing a certified copy of the sate deed dated 19.01.1987 executed by Sonsai in favour of the appeiients/piaintiffs, was not opposed by the respondentsldefendents. The unrebutted testimony of Khemiai P.W.3 proved the execution of sate deed of the suit tend by Sonsei in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.01195? vide registered sate deed Ex.P.3. Since the details of the lands soid were not iegibie as the originai document was torn, the same has been adequately pfoved by fiiing the certified copy of the sate deed dated 19.91.1957 showing execution of saie of suit iand by $onsai in favour of the appeiiants/piaintiffs. Therefore, the lower anneiiaie Count was whoiiy iustified in reversing the timing recorded by the trial Court and holding that the appeiiants/piaintifis had acquired titie over the suit iand on 19.01 .1867 through sate deed EXP; W executed by SonsaE. The first question is: therefore, answefed m affirmative irg favour of the appeHantsfpiaintiffs. 9‘ The aniy point that new yeqmres cansweraiion §n thEs appea§ is wheéher the titie of the maintiffs had got exiinguished due to inac€i¢n of the appeHantsImaimiffs from 1957 t}?! 1995‘ It is not disputed €hat passessiGn of Sonsai and aftey h§s cieaEn po$session ofthe {espondems/a‘efenciams was recomed eve? the su ‘and W 1%4 ”‘hus eewa! ans afte! i 5 deaih his iegai ven e$emaiwas i.ei the resporidems/ciefendame were “i corimuws un e‘ierrumed “assessmn of xhe Sm iand xiii me daie o? iiiieg oi the su’c i e for eve, ’18 years Ti*e iowe* apeeiiate usur‘ r‘as Liam e p apprecia 0’1 if eVide'ice oiai as a cumentary fee e a iiriding that eime i957 iiii i$ 4 $er$a and ‘aie iiegai iepaeeemeiiigee ( ese eentsideieedanize) wei'e in Linin fr we“ eoeeesswri ever the euit iand am? a? m poin‘i‘ sf iime, i‘ne .apeeiianésipiaiiiiiie were 33m. in poseeseien Ehereog‘. Here a r fe er e Se l—rice b5 o: iiwe LML 1.963 beeomes feievaai. it reade a3 unde?: r"65‘ Fer possessioia a? Tweiveyeare When ‘z‘ne possession immevabie pi‘eperiy of iie defendani er amy interest becomes adverse to therein bases‘i 9e iiiie. the eiainiifi". A piain reedieg of Articie 65 of the Limite ion Act goes to siiow that a suit for possession of immoveebie propeity or any interest therein based on titie has to be instituted within i2 years from the date on which ihe possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the piaintiffs. in the present case, on 19.01.1957 Sonsai had transferred a vaiid titie to the eiiants/piaintifis through a saie deed EX.P.3. However, pessession of w ‘ ihe sa§t éand was nevei' deEx/ered ‘to the mainiifa‘s amd $onsai and ihe;‘ea?’c$a' hi$ Eegai rapresenmtives continueij t0 be in unimermpieci pasgeasien far over 12 years, which W213 aiso reccrded in the fevenue recerds‘ ft Ea ihas net a casg where passession of? Sonsai and ihereai‘ief eppeliae’i Xpiein‘t§f§e ‘x'emameei inaaive fer a perwe of eve¥ 18 years enci inetiiuied me suii enly m the year 1Q95, the respondente/eefeedants deMee the se%e by Sonsai in faveur a? ““e appeiian‘islpiaini§f‘§s em? {esis‘aed 4.Gee s“? cm the greum‘ that Sonsei hec? never pefzed w§ih possession ef the suit iand and efier his cieeth ti‘iey coniinued in possession theieef. in such a siiua’iiee, Ehe quesiien of plea oi adverse possessien being faker} by 'i’ne {espeaeemsldefeneeme E A I wouici no? arise and in ine 3 5lacks aridi cii‘cumstenees of this case. for the pumose of Compuf'ng the peiiod of §wis EegaE repmsen‘iatives was permiss§ve 3:1 ”E we sa as to come i0 érag aid of ’the payxif‘s 0a m9. reasmmg iha§: gsas3es3ism howsaever Wig bemg \, \ germisgwe car: neve? becamé adverse to the cwner. Emce in this case SmszzE :‘eiameti pesse$sion of the suit 1am an ihe daie Q? execmian of the § saié éeetf; Le. €§.G1.‘:§8E’. 4’13 possession W9A3‘ aiiverse ‘ig éhe vendee Le. me €p§eii$ni$ip§§inws me 3&6; ma‘i possessian of Soasai and afier Ms n T" c am @QSSeséiari sf his §egai representatives LeA im resper:deni3lc§e‘?emiani$ wsgs cantinuausly facerded in fevenue reccrds i§§§ €3§£ aEsa stk'eng‘thens the §s1§erence é??? Dessession of Samai ahd afzezr 71‘: deafih passes3ior: of his Ixega; ! representatives over the suit Eanci was adverse A.Lo {Ame ventiee ’e ihe appeJen; iplamuns. x; is a§so to be remembered €het té’aés is ne’: a case where Sensei er h§s Iege! M .s I ‘ - 4 u femeeemteiéves were treepaesers eve? fee we lene. Gwnershie of fee $eesa§ over "e’fee ea? mad pi‘Eor ie 'i§.0‘i.‘i§8? is aeefee Since ihe hJménadon ‘3‘ *- under Ariicae 65 of the Limitation Ast, 1’: wouEd omy fequii'a‘i to be seen whaw did the pes3ess§0n 0f Sonsai and theg'eafter the respmdenis/éefendams became adverse E's ihe appe§§anislpla§aiiffe Thefewre, ihe abeence 9f piea a? adveyse posseesien by tiae defendamis, in such a $§€u3€§m, wsmd n a came éa fan eia of ihe apeeiiams,’pEaint§§“§s whoee r§g§1€ m ihe 51.1%? iand was exkinguished unde? Ariicie 27 a? 'the Liméiation Ac? ciee to their compiete masiion €or e pericé Qf 12 years from ’ ; I 49.01.1e0‘} M 10. Vendee 2? o: #JVIme L C é” 21 Exiixgeis‘mm Q?” fighi $9 preeerEymn At ihe determmaiien cf the period hereby Hmited Tm any person fey €¥§et§tuiing a suit for possessicn of any preperty, his {ighi f0 euc’n pmperty sha§§ be exiinguished. l. Egan Aci feeds as under: Section 2'? o?" the Limi‘za‘tion Act postuiates that afle‘; iiwe determinaien Q? €he peried prescrieeé for insiitutmg e suEt :.‘ :0f rigm h J. to aay pmpeg‘iy i‘ne pariy which shou§d have insii‘tuied such suii bu? has §ai§eoi is dc $0 wi’ihin the period p{esc:ibed by eme iaw cf L miia‘tien, ceases i0 have ey :‘i ht ever *re progerty and afier ire exgéry of me period wescribed $ (Q Leader €he LN; "m Act, the §aw deciai‘es that mt omy the remedy is barred but A;me tizie e as arse exénguisned. x. s M. The practéca? effec‘: of rhe rnactioe 9f ihe appezanésfpiainiE‘Es is extinguishmem cf ‘iheir ’mée over the sui’i ram}. m ?§*e View of the matter; i fuily comer 3i§1 the View taken by the ‘rower appeiiate sour? and aff§rm the fiadmg fihaa e. the {fee 1 acquiree ‘oy the appeéianés/piaint§?fs over the 513% mm? éhreugh sale deee} datee' 19.91.3396? executed by Sonsai had ga ew nm exiingwshed due i0 compieée énactien on the pea e ihe i; e agpgganisfpéaimiffs 'm acquiying possession over the sué’: land f0? mare than 12 years, timing which periad Smsa§ and afier his death Th9 {espondemswefemdams were in canimuous uraintermpted posse$sion. Thus, the su§s§aa€iai questiera sf §aw is answered in the affafmative agaiasi -:-r aismissed. he ggape!%ants/p§ainii?fs. Tm appeai being devaid 0‘s: merii is iiab§e m be ’F “hm 12" -én thefesai‘t, the apgea! §s dismESSeij. En the cii'cumstames oi Law saw, them sham iae n9 mder as casts. A decree be drawn accordingiy. / Sd/- Judge Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh # /