RAJ RANI & ANR. versus KAILASH CHAND & ANR.

RAJ RANI & ANR. versus KAILASH CHAND & ANR.

When a plaintiff sues for possession based on title and admits dispossession, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive possession within twelve years of the suit, as per Article 142 of the old Limitation Act. Failure to make this finding or to establish possession within the limitation period is fatal to the suit; thus, the judgments below were set aside and the matter remanded for proper determination.

Parties
Appellant: Raj Rani; Appellant: Kali Charan; Respondent: Kailash Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 February 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 4.12.1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3224 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal allowed and case remanded.
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof Under Limitation Act, Adverse Possession, Constructive Possession, Partition
Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Law Burden of Proof Under Limitation Act Adverse Possession Constructive Possession Partition

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Rani

Appellant

Kali Charan

Appellant

Kailash Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated 4.12.1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 3224 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was in actual or constructive possession within twelve years of the filing of suit under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908
  2. 2 Whether the suit was governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Ratio Decidendi

When a plaintiff sues for possession based on title and admits dispossession, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive possession within twelve years of the suit, as per Article 142 of the old Limitation Act. Failure to make this finding or to establish possession within the limitation period is fatal to the suit; thus, the judgments below were set aside and the matter remanded for proper determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed and case remanded.

Orders

  • The judgments and orders of the High Court and the first appellate court are set aside.
  • The case is remanded to the first appellate court to determine, based on evidence already on record, whether the plaintiff was in actual or constructive possession within twelve years of filing the suit.