NARASAMMA Vs. GAFURA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court, which has granted decree of declaration and possession in favour of the plaintiffs and directing the defendant to deliver possession of the property.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court held that there is no plea of adverse possession in the written statement filed by the defendant. If the suit is filed on the basis of previous possession, then the suit is to be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. That is not the case here. The specific case pleaded was, the plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property. The defendant has taken the premises on lease. He has stopped paying rents and therefore when they demanded rents, he started asserting title and therefore they were constrained to file a suit for declaration and possession. Therefore Article 65 is attracted and limitation starts from the date of denial of plaintiffs' right, which was few months prior to the passing of the said order, therefore the suit is not barred by time. In so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, as it is neither pleaded nor proved, the argument advanced in the appeal that he has perfected his possession by adverse possession is not accepted. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant is in appeal before this Court.