Vasantha (D) through LRs. vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (D) through LRs.
Background
The dispute originated from a series of settlement deeds executed by Thayammal in 1947, concerning her self-acquired property. The first settlement deed granted life interests to her two sons, Raghavulu Naidu and Munusamy Naidu, and vested remainder rights in the daughters of the elder son. After subsequent deaths and further settlement deeds in 1952 and 1953, the property’s title and possession became contentious. In 1993, Gopalakrishnan (husband of Saroja, one of the daughters) filed a suit seeking a declaration of title as Saroja’s heir, based on the original 1947 settlement.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the suit for declaration filed in 1993 was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether a suit for declaration of title without seeking consequential relief of possession is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Limitation: The Court examined when the right to sue accrued. It held that if Gopalakrishnan believed the subsequent settlement deeds (1952, 1953) were invalid, he should have challenged them within 12 years from their execution. Alternatively, when Munusamy executed further settlement deeds in 1974 and 1976, Gopalakrishnan, as Saroja’s heir, remained silent and took no action. The Court found the suit was clearly barred by limitation, as the period to challenge adverse possession or assert title had long expired by the time the suit was filed in 1993.
Maintainability under Specific Relief Act: The Supreme Court emphasized that a suit for declaration of title, when the plaintiff is not in possession, must also seek the relief of possession. Since Gopalakrishnan was admittedly not in possession and did not seek recovery of possession, the suit was hit by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and was not maintainable.
Adverse Possession: The Court observed that after the death of Pavunammal (life estate holder) in 2004, Vasantha’s possession became adverse, and by 2016, she would have perfected title by adverse possession. No suit for recovery of possession was filed even after Pavunammal’s death, further barring Gopalakrishnan’s claim.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Vasantha’s legal representatives, setting aside the High Court’s order that had recognized Gopalakrishnan’s claim. The Court held the suit was both barred by limitation and not maintainable for want of consequential relief. It reaffirmed that the lapse of limitation extinguishes the remedy, though not the underlying title, but in this case, the right to recover possession was also lost.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that:
A suit for declaration of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession, must include a prayer for possession.
Delay in asserting rights and failure to challenge adverse possession within the limitation period will bar the claim.
The decision reinforces the strict application of limitation laws and procedural requirements in property disputes.
Citation:
Vasantha (Dead) through LRs. vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) through LRs., [2024] 2 S.C.R. 326; 2024 INSC 109, Supreme Court of India, decided on February 13, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments