RAI SAHIB DR. GURDITIAMAL KAPUR versus MAHANT AMAR DAS CHELA MAHANT RAM SARAN AND ORS.

RAI SAHIB DR. GURDITIAMAL KAPUR versus MAHANT AMAR DAS CHELA MAHANT RAM SARAN AND ORS.

Since the appellant has been in continuous, exclusive possession as owner for more than 12 years, any occupancy right was extinguished by adverse possession. Respondent no. 1’s suit is time-barred; the Mahant or Receiver could have sued within limitation, thus limitation runs from date of dispossession, not from date of appointment of a new Mahant.

Parties
Appellant: Rai Sahib Dr. Gurditiamal Kapur; Respondent No. 1: Mahant Amar Das Chela Mahant Ram Saran; Respondent No. 2: Mahant Ram Saran Das; Respondent No. 11: Union of India; Respondents: Other respondents
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 March 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 9, 1960 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1627 of 1960
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Tenancy, Religious Trusts, Limitation Periods
Property Law Limitation Law Adverse Possession Tenancy Religious Trusts Limitation Periods

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rai Sahib Dr. Gurditiamal Kapur

Appellant

Mahant Amar Das Chela Mahant Ram Saran

Respondent No. 1

Mahant Ram Saran Das

Respondent No. 2

Union of India

Respondent No. 11

Other respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab High Court Judgment and Decree Dated November 9, 1960 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1627 of 1960

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit for possession by respondent no. 1 is within limitation
  2. 2 Whether Mahant’s successor can sue for possession after forfeiture of tenancy
  3. 3 Whether occupancy right was extinguished by adverse possession

Ratio Decidendi

Since the appellant has been in continuous, exclusive possession as owner for more than 12 years, any occupancy right was extinguished by adverse possession. Respondent no. 1’s suit is time-barred; the Mahant or Receiver could have sued within limitation, thus limitation runs from date of dispossession, not from date of appointment of a new Mahant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Decrees of the trial court and appellate court are set aside.
  • Suit of respondent no. 1 is dismissed with costs in all courts.