Suit For Possession Based On Title Governed By Article 65 Limitation Act: Madras HC

In a crucial clarification on property law, the High Court of Madras has ruled that a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, making a mere denial of title insufficient to defeat ownership. Resolving a complex intra-family dispute over real estate, the Court affirmed that long-standing permissive occupation cannot automatically mature into adverse possession without clear proof of hostile claim for the statutory period.

A single-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete adjudicated the first appeal challenging the trial court's decree that favored the property owner. The dispute centered around a property claim where the defendant asserted title via an unproven oral gift and adverse possession, while resisting the owner's suit for possession.

Addressing the core legal issues on title and limitation, the High Court sustained the validity of the registered sale deed executed by a power of attorney holder and dismissed claims of invalidity under the doctrine of delegation. The Court held that a third party cannot challenge the adequacy of sale consideration when the executant himself admits to the transaction.

The Court has the following directions:

"The appellant/defendant shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent/plaintiff within two months from the date of this order, if possession has not already been delivered."

Evaluating the defence of adverse possession and limitation, the Court observed that inconsistent pleas of oral gift and adverse possession are mutually destructive. The Court, in its reasoning, observed:

"In such a suit, the substantive relief is the recovery of possession on the strength of title. Accordingly, the applicable provision is Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a period of twelve years commencing from the date on which the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff establishes title to the property in question, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that his possession became hostile and adverse to the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-title, and that such adverse possession continued uninterruptedly for the full statutory period of twelve years."

Background:

The dispute involved a plaintiff who purchased the suit property via a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) dated 26.08.2005 from a power agent. The defendant, who was the husband of the plaintiff's sister, was permitted to occupy the premises. After the plaintiff issued a legal notice in 2006 calling upon him to vacate, the defendant issued a reply notice denying her title and subsequently filed a separate suit. Following further notices, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 64 of 2011 before the II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, seeking title declaration and recovery of possession.

The defendant resisted the suit, claiming that the sale deed was nominal, that the property was orally gifted to his wife, and that he had perfected title through adverse possession over 14 years. He also contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as it was filed more than three years after his first denial of title in 2006. Referring to precedents like S. Shivraj Reddy (Died) through LRs and others v. S. Raghuraj Reddy and others on limitation and Valliammal (D) by LRs v. Subramaniam and others on benami transactions, the appellant urged that the suit be dismissed.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on 31.07.2017. Dismissing the appeal, the Madras High Court upheld the decree, confirming that the vendor held valid power to execute the sale deed under Section 190 of the Indian Contract Act and that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving adverse possession.

Case Details:
Case No.: A.S. No. 69 of 2018
Case Title: Deenadayalan v. Indirani
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Thilageswaran for M/s. Waraon And Sai Rams
For the Respondent(s): M/s. V. Srimathi

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 5229