Case: M/S EUREKA BUILDERS  Vs. GULABCHAND DEAD BY LRS AND ORS ETC ETC

filing a suit to claim possession of any immovable property. The period of 12 years prescribed in these two articles is required to be counted from“the date of dispossession”(Article 64) and“when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff”(Article 65).64. As held supra, the original holders (three PATIL) failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming possession of the suit land on the strength of their new title namely, re-grant in relation to the suit land, within 12 years from the date of re-grant and, therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land got extinguished.65. In view of these reasons, we are of the considered view that neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants could take any benefit of the orders of re-grant dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by the State so as to divest the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee (plaintiffs) from their rights, title and interest in the suit land which they had legally acquired through Court Auction and direct purchase in 1942/43.66. This issue can be examined from yet another legal angle on the admitted facts situation arising in the case.67. It is not in dispute that Shah Veljee kanjee, in the first instance, acquired legal and valid title in the suit land through Court Auction proceedings in the year 1942 and second, by direct purchase of the part of the suit land on 14.05.1943 from the original holders (three PATIL).68. In our view, the plaintiff in alternative can be held to have acquired title against the original holders(three PATIL) by operation of law. The reason is not far to seek.69. Admittedly, the plaintiff continued to remain in lawful possession of the suit land since 1942/1943, first through Shah Veljee Kanjee and after his death through his legal representatives. It is not in dispute that the original holders (three PATIL) were aware of the ownership rights of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land since 1942/1943 as Shah Veljee Kanjee got the suit land by State Auction proceedings and also by direct sale/purcahse.70. In this way, it was proved that the possession of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land was throughout long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful with assertion of ownership from 1942 till 2004 to the knowledge of the whole world.71. The aforesaid undisputed facts confirm the possessory rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land against everyone including the original holders (three PATIL) by operation of law.72. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel then referred the provisions of MHO Act and KVA Act and pointed out the nature of grant and the re-grant of the suit land made in favour of the original holders by the State and how it devolved on the holders etc.73. In our view, this submission need not be dealt with in detail because it has no relevance in the light of our findings recorded above against the appellants.74. In other words, once the rights of the original holders in the suit land stood extinguished, this submission does not survive for consideration on its merits.75. A right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation. Such is not the case here.76. There is, however, another infirmity in the case of the appellants, which disentitle them to claim any relief in relation to the suit land.77. As mentioned above, the appellants, for proving the right of ownership of the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land, have placed reliance on the two orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 of the State by which the State is alleged to have made re-grant of the suit land in favour of the original holders (three PATIL).78. In our view, in the absence of any adjudication of the right of ownership of the original holders (three PATIL) on the strength of these two orders by the competent Court as against the other stakeholders having an interest in the suit land and especially the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee, it is not possible to give any benefit of these two orders in favour of the original holders (three PATIL) in these proceedings.79. That apart, what is the effect of passing of the two orders on the rights, title and interest of the purchasers of the suit land because admittedly, the suit land was sold to the purchaser (Late Shah Veljee Kanjee) prior to passing of these two orders and whether these orders will ipso facto divest the purchasers of their rights, title and interest in the suit land were required to be gone into by the competent Court after affording an opportunity to such affected persons, namely, legal representatives of late Shah Veljee Kanjee.80. The original holders (three PATIL) though filed the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time the original holders (three PATIL) approached the Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years) as has been held supra.81. It is for these reasons also, we are of the view that the appellants have no case.82. In our view, therefore, the High Court was right in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour (assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 and secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land.83.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. In our view, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court cannot be faulted with. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court by assigning our reasoningAt the outset, we observe that so far as the right, title and interest of the appellants in the suit land is concerned, the appellants neither claim and nor do they have a right to claim any right, title and interest in the suit land in their own rights. In other words, the status of the appellants in this litigation are that of the intending purchasers of the suit land from the original holders of the suit land (threeIn our view, if the original holders (three PATIL) are able to prove their subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, the appellants would be able to get the relief in the suit because they are claiming through original holders (three PATIL). But if the original holders (three PATIL) are not able to prove their subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, then the appellants would also loose theIn our considered opinion, the appellants have failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land through whom they claim to derive interest in the suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, out of which these appeals arise. The appellants, therefore, have no locus to claim any interest in the suitIt is a settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration orIn other words, whatever interest a person is possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer only that interest to the other person and no other interest, which he himself does not possess in the tangibleSo, once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer would be an illegal and voidIn our considered opinion, the reasons as to why the appellants failed to prove the subsisting right, title and interest of the original holders (intendingPATIL) in the suit land are more than one as are set out by usFirst, the original holders (three PATIL) had filed two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) in relation to the suit land asserting therein their ownership rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff and other members of Shah Veljee Kanjee but both the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court onThese dismissal attained finality regardless of the fact as to on what grounds they suffered dismissal. These dismissals were binding on the original holder (three PATIL). A fortiori, these dismissals are binding on the appellants too because the appellants were claiming through the original holders (threeIt is for this reason, we are of the view that the original owners did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land, which they could have or/and were capable to transfer to the appellants whether for consideration or otherwise on the date when they entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land to the appellants onSecond, it cannot be disputed that original holders (three PATIL) had parted with the suit land long back by legal mode of transfer, one through Court Auction proceedings in 1942 and the other by direct sale/purchase on 14.05.1943 in favour of Shah VeljeeSince then, the original holders (three PATIL) did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land because whatever rights, title and interest which they had in the suit land, the same were transferred to Shah Veljee Kanjee through Court Auction proceedings in 1942 and by direct sale/purchase on 14.05.1943. These rights were then devolved on his legal representatives by inheritance consequent upon the death of Shah VeljeeIt also cannot be disputed, as taken note of above, that the Civil Court had already recognized the rights, title and interest of the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee in the suit land in O.S. No.9/1969 filed by them against theThis suit was decreed in favour of legal representative of Shah Veljee Kanjeeand remained upheld up to thisIt is due to these reasons also, all the rights, title and interest of original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land stoodWe find no merit in this submission for more than one reason. Assuming for the sake of argument that as a result of theorders made by the State in favour of the original holders (three PATIL), the rights, title and interest in the suit land again reverted to them in 1973 but they failed to exercise their right of ownership over the suit land for a long time, hence their right of ownership stoodIt was only after 31 years from theorder, the original holders woke up from slumber and filed two suits (O.S. Nos.364 and 365/2004) against the plaintiff and other members of Shah Veljee Kanjee in the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the two civil suits also suffered dismissal from the Civil Court on 23.11.2004 and attainedIn our considered opinion, whateverrights, title and interest which the original holders derived from the orders ofin 1973 in the suit property in their favour, the same stood extinguished by efflux ofThe reason was that in order to keep such new rights intact and enforceable, the original holders (three PATIL) were under a legal obligation to have filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession of the suit land and this ought to have been done by them within 12 years from the date ofThey, however, failed to do so within 12 years and when they actually tried to exercise their rights by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years from 1973), by then it was too late to exercise such rights in law. By that time, their rights in the suit land stoodAs held supra, the original holders (three PATIL) failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming possession of the suit land on the strength of their new title namely,in relation to the suit land, within 12 years from the date ofand, therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land gotIn view of these reasons, we are of the considered view that neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants could take any benefit of the orders ofdated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by the State so as to divest the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee (plaintiffs) from their rights, title and interest in the suit land which they had legally acquired through Court Auction and direct purchase inThis issue can be examined from yet another legal angle on the admitted facts situation arising in theIt is not in dispute that Shah Veljee kanjee, in the first instance, acquired legal and valid title in the suit land through Court Auction proceedings in the year 1942 and second, by direct purchase of the part of the suit land on 14.05.1943 from the original holders (threeIn our view, the plaintiff in alternative can be held to have acquired title against the original holders(three PATIL) by operation of law. The reason is not far toAdmittedly, the plaintiff continued to remain in lawful possession of the suit land since 1942/1943, first through Shah Veljee Kanjee and after his death through his legal representatives. It is not in dispute that the original holders (three PATIL) were aware of the ownership rights of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land since 1942/1943 as Shah Veljee Kanjee got the suit land by State Auction proceedings and also by directIn this way, it was proved that the possession of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land was throughout long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful with assertion of ownership from 1942 till 2004 to the knowledge of the wholeThe aforesaid undisputed facts confirm the possessory rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land against everyone including the original holders (three PATIL) by operation ofIn our view, this submission need not be dealt with in detail because it has no relevance in the light of our findings recorded above against theIn other words, once the rights of the original holders in the suit land stood extinguished, this submission does not survive for consideration on itsA right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation. Such is not the caseThere is, however, another infirmity in the case of the appellants, which disentitle them to claim any relief in relation to the suitAs mentioned above, the appellants, for proving the right of ownership of the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land, have placed reliance on the two orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 of the State by which the State is alleged to have madeof the suit land in favour of the original holders (threeIn our view, in the absence of any adjudication of the right of ownership of the original holders (three PATIL) on the strength of these two orders by the competent Court as against the other stakeholders having an interest in the suit land and especially the legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee, it is not possible to give any benefit of these two orders in favour of the original holders (three PATIL) in theseThat apart, what is the effect of passing of the two orders on the rights, title and interest of the purchasers of the suit land because admittedly, the suit land was sold to the purchaser (Late Shah Veljee Kanjee) prior to passing of these two orders and whether these orders will ipso facto divest the purchasers of their rights, title and interest in the suit land were required to be gone into by the competent Court after affording an opportunity to such affected persons, namely, legal representatives of late Shah VeljeeThe original holders (three PATIL) though filed the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time the original holders (three PATIL) approached the Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years) as has been heldIt is for these reasons also, we are of the view that the appellants have noIn our view, therefore, the High Court was right in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the date ofin their favour (assuming theto be valid) in 1985 and secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land.