”Outer Limitation for suit for possession based on title is not lost merely because relief of declaration is also sought”:

In the case Sopanrao & Anr v. Syed Mehmood & Ors. The SC held that merely because relief of declaration is also sought in a suit for possession, the outer limitation of 12 years is not lost.
According to the plaintiffs, the possession of the land was illegally given to Namdeo Deosthanh Trust on 19.8.1978 by the government. Plaintiffs prayed that the possession of the land be restored to the plaintiff. Defendants contested the suit on the grounds that the suit wasn’t filed within the period of the limitation as it is within 3 years for the suit of declaration, the suit was bad for the non-joinder of the necessary parties and contented that the suit land belonged to the Trust since time immemorial and thereby the suit may dismiss. The trial court held that the plaintiffs didn’t file the suit within the period of limitation and they weren’t able to prove that they are the Inamdars. Aggrieved plaintiffs filed the suit in the district court and the court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that Dargah Niyamatullah and the plaintiffs and the defendant No.12 are Inamdars of the suit land. After the appeal filed in the Bombay High court, the HC judge modified the decree of the district judge that the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 12 were to be of Mutawalis not Inamdars.
SC held that the judgments of the district court and the High court are based on evidence. No question of law arises as the ownership of the land is concerned. The defendants contested the suit on the grounds that the suit wasn’t filed within the reasonable time period as per the case LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shiva kumar but the apex court held that LC Hanumanthappa’s case was for the relief of declaration only, whereas in the present case the plaintiffs prayed the suit for possession also. Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years for the suit of possession is lost. The main suit is of possession and therefore the suit be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This article deals with the suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the instant case, even if the case of the defendants is taken at the highest, the possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff only on 19.08.1978 when possession was handed over to the defendants. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention of the appellants.
It was argued that the plaintiffs had prayed that they were Inamdars and the High court had created a new case for the plaintiffs by declaring them to Mutawalis. It was argued that since plaintiffs had not claimed the relief that they were Mutawalis, the HC could not have granted this relief. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this court in the case of Bacchaj nahar v. Nilima Mandal, the bench said that the lesser relief or smaller relief claimed or prayed for can be granted for the lesser relief or smaller version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted.

Bhavya Verma- Intern