R. Anthony Joseph and others vs Francis Billomane. Regular First Appeal 965/2013 decided on 23 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/356346/1/RFA965-13-23-12-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs 41. It is well settled that, if any person claims adverse possession against another person in respect of the property in question, unless the ownership of that person is admitted, filing of suit for declaration and permanent injunction specifically pleading that his father was the owner by virtue of the oral Gift Deed and after his death, the plaintiffs continued to be peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without admitting the title of the defendant in respect of the property in question, the plaintiffs cannot claim adverse possession. There should be necessary animus on the part of the person, who intends to perfect his title by adverse possession where a person, who under the bonafide belief thought that property belongs to him and as such, had been in possession of the same, such possession cannot at all be adverse possession as it lack necessary animus of perfecting title by adverse possession. Under the law of Adverse Possession, without admitted title of the defendant, plaintiff is not permitted to raise the question of adverse possession.
54. It is well settled that the doctrine of Lis Pendency applies only where lis is pending before the Court. Further, in the pending suit, the transferee is not entitled, as a right, to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party, if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. Though this Court has permitted the proposed applicant to come on record only as a representative in the interest of appellant No.1 as per the decree of the trial Court granting permanent injunction, he cannot claim beyond the rights confirmed by the trial Court.
63. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 27 of the Limitation Act in the case of Prem Singh and Others –vs- Birbal and Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 3608 held that the limitation is a statute of repose. It ordinarily bars a remedy, but does not extinguish a right. The only exception to the said rule is to be found in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that at the determination of the period prescribed thereby, limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal. Bangalore.
Daksha Legal 