BUTA RAM Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit for possession of the property in dispute on the basis of his ownership but also alleged that he had been recently dispossessed. The trial Court framed an issue as to whether the suit was within limitation and holding that the defendants, did not claim title by adverse possession, decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding on the issue of limitation and dismissed the suit which led to the findings this second appeal.

(2.) After the enforcement of the present Limitation Act with effect from January 1, 1964, the limitation to file a suit on the basis of title starts from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse. The plaintiff obviously is not required to show as to when the possession becomes adverse. The issue on the question of limitation was, therefore, wrongly framed so as to put its burden of proof on the plaintiff. As the parties have led whole of their evidence in this regard it would not be of any use to remand the case for recording a fresh finding. The matter was therefore heard on merits.

(3.) From a bare perusal of the evidence led by the respondents it is apparent that they are claiming to be in possession only from the last 6/7 years prior to the filing of the suit. Though they also claimed that earlier one Rattan Lal was in possession on their behalf but there is no evidence to substantiate this allegation. Rattan Lal in his statement stated that he was in its possession for the last 20 years but he never deposed that he was in possession on behalf of the defendants nor claimed any title adverse to the owners. Even the defendants nerve deposed that they were claiming adverse title to the real owners to the knowledge of the latter. The defendants thus have utterly failed to prove as to when their adverse possession started and much less that they had been in adverse possession for more than twelve years prior to the filing of the suit. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, went wholly wrong in holding that the suit was barred by time and its finding in this regard has to be reversed.