Limitation for Declaration and Possession Claims

Introduction

In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India settled a recurring legal issue: what is the appropriate limitation period for suits seeking both declaration of ownership and recovery of possession? The Court held that such suits are governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows a 12-year period, not the 3-year limit under Article 58 that applies to pure declaratory reliefs.

Factual Background

• The plaintiff, Kalsammanavara Kalamma, filed O.S. No. 67 of 2011 seeking a declaration of ownership and injunction regarding a disputed property.
  
• The Trial Court held that although the plaintiff proved title, she was not in possession and had failed to seek recovery.
  
• After her death, her legal heirs amended the plaint in RFA No. 80 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court to include a prayer for possession.
  
• The Appellate Court allowed the appeal, holding that Article 65 applied, and granted relief.
  
• The Karnataka High Court affirmed this ruling.
  
• The defendants approached the Supreme Court in a Second Appeal, contesting both the limitation period and the validity of the amendment.
  

Legal Issues Framed

1. Which limitation provision applies when a suit seeks both declaration and possession—Article 58 (3 years) or Article 65 (12 years)?
   
2. Is it legally permissible to amend a plaint at the appellate stage to include a claim for possession?
   

Arguments by the Parties

Appellants (Defendants):

• The suit should be barred under Article 58, which requires that suits seeking declaratory relief be filed within 3 years from the date of cause of action.
  
• The amendment seeking possession was filed 7 years after the original suit and was therefore time-barred.
  
• Relied on Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126, asserting that limitation for declaratory relief begins from the first accrual of the right.
  

Respondents (Plaintiffs):

• Article 65 governs suits seeking possession based on ownership, giving a 12-year window from the date possession became adverse.
  
• The amendment was procedural, not substantive, and arose from the same cause of action.
  
• Relied on:
  
  • Government of Kerala v. Joseph (2023 SCC OnLine SC 961) – Possession alone does not confer ownership unless adverse possession is proven.
    
  • Indira v. Arumugam (1998) 1 SCC 614) – Once title is proved, possession must be restored unless the defendant establishes adverse possession.
    

Court’s Reasoning

On Limitation

• The Court held that Article 65 applies, as the suit’s essence was to recover possession based on ownership title.
  
• Possession follows title unless the defendant proves otherwise, such as by establishing adverse possession.
  
• Distinguished from Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (2022) 15 SCC 260, which dealt with a cancellation of sale deed, where Article 58 applied.
  

On Amendment of Plaint

• The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but merely included a necessary consequential relief.
  
• Relied on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002) 7 SCC 559, holding that amendments arising from the same transaction can relate back to the original suit date.
  

Final Verdict

• Appeal dismissed:
  
  • The suit was held to be governed by Article 65, granting a 12-year limitation period.
    
  • The amendment to include possession at the appellate stage was upheld.
    
  • The Court directed restoration of possession to the legal heirs of the original plaintiff.
    

Key Takeaways

• Suits seeking possession based on ownership title are governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act (12 years).
  
• Declaratory suits not involving possession may fall under Article 58 (3 years).
  
• Amendments at the appellate stage are permissible if they arise from the same cause of action and do not fundamentally change the suit’s nature.
  
• Defendants must prove adverse possession to defeat a claim rooted in title.
  

Conclusion

This judgment in Mallavva vs. Kalamma fortifies the legal position that when title and possession are both claimed, Article 65 of the Limitation Act applies. The decision provides essential clarity on limitation law, reinforcing that procedural amendments—even at the appellate stage—can be allowed if they don’t introduce a new legal basis. It is a landmark ruling for property and civil law practitioners dealing with disputes involving declaratory and possessory rights.

FAQs:

1. What is the limitation period for suits claiming both title and possession?

The limitation is 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when possession is sought based on ownership.

2. Can declaratory suits be filed after 3 years?

If the relief is purely declaratory without seeking possession, then Article 58 applies, allowing 3 years from the date of cause of action.

3. Is it legal to amend a plaint at the appellate stage?

Yes, if the amendment arises from the same set of facts and doesn’t introduce a new cause of action, it is permissible and relates back to the original filing date.

4. Does proving title automatically entitle the plaintiff to possession?

Generally, yes. Possession follows title unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the statutory period.

5. What must a defendant show to defeat a title-based possession claim?

The defendant must establish adverse possession—i.e., hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for 12 years or more.

Stay informed with insights that matter. Follow us for more updates on key legal developments.

Disclaimer

The content provided here is for general information only; it does not constitute legal advice. Reading them does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and Mahendra Bhavsar & Co. disclaims all liability for actions taken or omitted based on this content. Always obtain advice from qualified counsel for your specific circumstances. © Mahendra Bhavsar & Co.