AMEERUDDIN Vs. HUSSAINSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal, who, sued for a mandatory injunction for removal of some structure in the form of a bathroom and latrine constructed by a neighbour-defendant for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject land and for further consequential injunction. Suit dismissed by the Trial Court and affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) IMMOVABLE properties have the knack of getting compatible with persons who start enjoying it. A true owner, if abandons the property allowed to be occupied by all and sundry and wakes up like a Rip Van Winkle long after, and starts howling that his property has been occupied by some stranger, well the stranger will have become the owner by then and he will no more be a stranger because the stranger has acquired familiarity with the property, due to long years of enjoyment and true owner becomes a stranger due to long years of absence from the property Such is the law of the properties.

(3.) APPEARING on behalf of the appellant submission of Sri V.R. Datar, learned Counsel, is that the Courts below have totally gone wrong in dismissing the suit and the first appeal respectively, on the ground of limitation, have not appreciated the correct legal position; have not appreciated the law in this regard in it's proper perspective; that the cause of action does not begin to run on the day a third party encroaches or commits violation in respect of proprietary rights of the plaintiff, but starts only on the day when the plaintiff comes to know of the such violation and therefore submits that the suit was well within time and the judgment is contrary to law.