The possession of the land in question was illegally given to the trust by the government and the main ground raised was that the suit was not filed within the period of limitation. The trial court after hearing the arguments held that the suit was filed out of limitation. The district court as as well as the High Court also decreed the suit. The matter reiterated before the apex court comprising of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Indira Banerjee held that the suit is within limitation and the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of L.C.HANUMANTHAPPA v. H.B. SHIVAKUMAR is wholly misplaced, as this case deals with only suit with declaration and not with the matter in the present case which deals with suit for possession and declaration. If the case is dealing with matters regarding possession based on title then they cannot succeed unless he has held some title over the head. This suit will be governed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, which deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest based on the title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when the possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court has held that merely because relief of declaration is also sought in a suit for possession, the outer limitation of 12 years is not lost. Another contention placed was that the high court has declared the plaintiffs as mutawalis which they have not claimed for, reliance was placed on the judgment in BACHHAJ NAHAR V. NILIMA MANDAL (2008) 17 SCC 491 lays down that the lesser relief or smaller relief claimed or prayed for can be granted. The plaintiffs have claimed the status of Inamdar , a higher position and the high court has granted a lesser or lower relief and not a higher relief or a totally new relief and, therefore we reject this contention. Thus, “Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost.”
1830
1640
630
54
101277