1) adverse possession can be only claimed as a defence

2) you cannot file suit of declaration of title on adverse possession

1) If title and possession of land is on your name than don't worry that buyer couldn't do anything as per limitations act the time period for suit has been lapsed.

2) why you want to reopen the case again.

The contract for sale stands cancelled

Please clear facts there on agreement to sell there is no sell deed then how can be title with buyer???

This is adverse possession as claimed against the title of owner without his permission but it can be taken as defence you cannot file a declaration suit on it.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act confers

power on the court to grant declaratory reliefs. Section 34

provides that any person entitled to any legal character, or to

any right as to any property, may Institute a suit against any

person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such

character or right, and the court may in its discretion make

therein a declaration that he is so entitled. There is no law

which provides that when a person possesses a property

adverse to the interest of the real owner, he becomes the

owner of the property. On the other hand, when it is said that

the person in adverse possession has perfected title, it only

means that since the person who had the right to possession

has allowed his right to be extinguished, the person who is in

adverse possession will be entitled to hold the property as its

absolute owner. As such, a suit for declaration of title by

adverse possession can only be treated as a suit for declaration

of a legal character. The question is as to whether a declaration

of such a legal character can be sought. Article 65 of the

schedule to the Limitation Act deals with the period of limitation

for suits for possession of immovable property or any interest

therein based on title. As per the said Article, the period of

limitation prescribed for suits of the said nature is twelve years

from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes

adverse to the plaintiff. In other words, if the possession of the

defendant does not become adverse to the plaintiff, there is no

period of limitation for a suit for possession based on title.

Article 65 does not confer any right on the defendant over the

property. On the other hand, the said Article provides for a

defence to persons in possession of immovable property of

others. Section 27 of the Limitation Act provides that at the

determination of the period prescribed to any person for

instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to

such property shall be extinguished. Section 27 would operate

only when a plea of adverse possession is established by the

defendant in an action for possession based on title. In other

words, the extinguishment of the right of the real owner is

dependent on the establishment of adverse possession by the

person in possession and the question of establishment of

adverse possession arises only when a suit is filed for

possession based on title. It is therefore, evident that the plea

of adverse possession is only a shield and not a sword at all. If

that be so, I have no hesitation to hold that a suit for

declaration of title over a property by adverse possession and

limitation is not maintainable. I draw support to this view from

the decision of the Apex Court in Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram

Panchayat Village Sirthala (supra). Paragraph 7 of the said

judgment reads thus:

"In the Second Appeal, the relief of ownership by adverse

possession is again denied holding that such a suit is not

maintainable. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the

judgments of the courts below are correct and without any

blemish. Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession,

it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse

possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed

against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it

can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence."

Yes, surely adverse possession theory is acceptable in your case, but subject to the condition that during the period of any 12 years till no one has done anything legally to remove you from the possession.

Yes, I can provide you the same, but subject to the appointment with me through Kanoon, so that I can provide you the details of the judgement plus important paragraphs of the same.

1. You should have filed a substitution petition after the demise of your grandfather with in 90 days thereof.

2. However, since you are in possession of the said property for more than 50 years, you cab very well claim right on the said property due to adverse possession.

3. You can file a declaratory suit claiming right on the said property due to adverse possession

Buyer will get the right title and interest on account of adverse possession.

This order of court has not appeled till today.but performance of contract is incomplete but Possession is our, for 50 years. Now ,is my possession permissive or adverse?

Since no action was initiated by both the sides in this regard for four to five decades, but the property is in your possession only till date, in my opinion you can go for declaring the title by adverse possession.

Can I file a suit of declaration of title on adverse possession? Is it maintainable? If yes , please refer any court judgements on such cases. Or what is other remedy.

In my opinion, a suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession may be a proper remedy to this.

Buyers has title

Since the property has been in your possession for more than five decades, and no action was initiated by the buyers till this date, then buyer's title is in question.

You can defence of adverse possession in case seller files any case against you

Possession is open , hostile for continuous period of over 12 years

1. It was not in the contract but the Court opinion that buyers remedy to bring a suit for specific performance of the contract is not yet barred by limitation.

2. In your first query you have stated "The term of contract is that if seller is failed to execute sale deed then buyer should execute through court that if seller is willing to execute and buyer didn't get it the contract will cancel.".

3. With the above terms of the contract the seller could have filed a declaratory suit for declaration that the contract has been cancelled for the buyers not registering the sale deed despite being asked by the seller (if they can provide such evidence).

4. However, since no such suit has yet been filed, you can claim adverse possession as advised in my earlier posts.

See under an agreement you can claim specific performance.of same but claiming title under an agreement if property is not registered is not possible.

You can claim.the adverse possession in case seller files for possession you have right of enjoying the possession but not ownership.

Under specific relief act you can file a petition for declaration of same. You can file in court for declaration of possession over the property to the extent of possession but owner ship is subjective as no right over title is there.

Section 53 A was enacted only to protect the rights of the intended transferee and nothing more. This position has now been clarified by the amendment in/omission to the Transfer of Property Act. "Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor.

The provisions of Section 53A ,envisages situations where under a contract for transfer of immovable property , the purchaser has paid the price and has taken possession of the property even though the transfer deed or conveyance has not been registered. In such cases the transferor is debarred from agitating his title to the property against the purchaser.

adverse possession can be claimed only as defense

2) you would not get declaration of title based on adverse possession