NAVANEETHAMMAL versus ARJUNA CHETTY

NAVANEETHAMMAL versus ARJUNA CHETTY

Limitation period for suit to recover possession from a tenant in such circumstances starts from the date when the tenant sets up a hostile title, not merely on expiry of lease. Defendant’s possession after lease expiry was permissive and not adverse; suit was filed within five years of defendant’s hostile claim, so not barred by limitation. High Court was not justified in interfering with concurrent findings of lower courts without compelling reason under Section 100 CPC.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Navaneethammal; Respondent/defendant: Arjuna Chetiy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 1980 / Supreme Court Appellate (appeal From High Court Second Appeal Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments of Courts below restored; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation, Concurrent Findings, Possession After Lease, Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC
Property Law Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation Concurrent Findings Possession After Lease Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navaneethammal

Appellant/plaintiff

Arjuna Chetiy

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 1980 / Supreme Court Appellate (appeal From High Court Second Appeal Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for recovery of possession is barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908
  2. 2 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of the courts below
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had prescribed title by adverse possession after the expiry of the lease

Ratio Decidendi

Limitation period for suit to recover possession from a tenant in such circumstances starts from the date when the tenant sets up a hostile title, not merely on expiry of lease. Defendant’s possession after lease expiry was permissive and not adverse; suit was filed within five years of defendant’s hostile claim, so not barred by limitation. High Court was not justified in interfering with concurrent findings of lower courts without compelling reason under Section 100 CPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments of Courts below restored; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Suit decreed as per trial and appellate court: plaintiff entitled to suit property; defendant to surrender possession.
  • No order as to costs.