It is necessary to peruse documents cited by you to advise 

there is no limitation period for filing partition suit by cowberry of property 

purchaser can claim adverse possession against seller  by proving continuous, hostile, and open possession for the period of  12 years for private property

2)The 12-year limitation period is the timeframe within which the original owner ) must file a lawsuit to reclaim possession based on their title.

My head is aching reading this question 

Purchaser cannot claim adverse possession 

A purchaser cannot claim title by adverse possession, because their possession is based on a lawful agreement with the original owner, not hostile to the owner's rights.

The legal requirement for adverse possession is that the possession must be "hostile," meaning it is without the owner's consent and in denial of their title.

A purchase, even if the full title transfer is not yet complete, involves consent from the owner. 

However, without knowing the case details any opinion given in furtherance may be a misguidance.

A purchaser is "estopped" from claiming their possession is hostile. The law prevents them from arguing that their possession is adverse to the seller after having entered into a sales agreement.

If the suit is decided then the rights will be determined through the court order in suit and appeal if any

Thank you for sharing the detailed background — I can see this is a complex civil dispute involving co-ownership, injunction, acquisition, restoration, gift, sale, and a fresh partition suit after nearly 25 years. I’ll help you understand the position step-by-step in simple, legally accurate language, so that you can decide the next move strategically.

1. Summary of Facts (Chronological)

1995: Your father (Judgment Debtor – JD) purchased the property.
2006: In a co-sharer’s suit, the court declared the plaintiffs co-sharers and restrained your father by permanent injunction from interfering till he obtains his share through a properly framed partition suit.
Post-2006: Despite that decree, your father continued in full, open, and exclusive possession.
1997 → 2014: Government acquisition occurred and was later quashed by the High Court in 2014, restoring ownership and possession to your father.
2018–2020: Mutation, taxes, crop certificates, loan, borewell, electricity, commercial conversion, and even a gift deed to his son were all made in your father’s and his family’s names.
2024: Your father (JD) obtained a new decree of ownership and injunction against third parties.
2025: His daughter (your sister) has now filed a fresh partition and separate-possession suit, adding ancestral properties and the same purchased land.

2. Legal Position After 25 Years

1. The 2006 Injunction Decree:
   That decree did not partition or allot any share. It merely said your father cannot interfere till a partition suit is filed. The plaintiffs never pursued such a partition in 25 years. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, a co-sharer who is excluded and kept out of possession for 12 years loses his right to claim possession or partition.

2. Continuous Exclusive Possession:
   Since 2006 (or even 1995) your father has been in exclusive, open, and hostile possession, paying taxes, holding revenue entries, raising construction, taking loans, and exercising ownership acts. This strengthens an adverse-possession plea.

3. Adverse Possession Against Co-sharers:
   The law is strict: one co-sharer’s possession becomes adverse to the others only when it is open, notorious, and hostile to their knowledge. In your case:

• Court records (mutation, loan, conversion) are all public and constitute open acts.

• No challenge or action was taken by any co-sharer for more than 12 years.
  Hence, the limitation period for them to challenge your father’s possession has long expired.

1. Effect of Government Acquisition and Quashing (1997–2014):
   The High Court’s order quashing acquisition reaffirmed your father’s title and possession. This judicial confirmation further weakens any claim that others were in joint possession.

2. Gift and Sale Deeds (2020 → 2025):
   Those transfers show your father exercised full ownership rights. A buyer or donee from him becomes a bona fide transferee in possession protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act if there was no notice of others’ rights.

3. The New Partition Suit (2025):
   After 25 years, the fresh suit is barred by limitation and contrary to settled possession. The plaintiffs must first prove joint possession or a subsisting co-ownership, which, on facts, appears lost.

3. Strategy & Next Legal Steps

1. File a Detailed Written Statement in the 2025 partition suit:

• Plead limitation under Article 65 and Sections 27 & 28 of the Limitation Act.

• Plead adverse possession — open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile for 12 years.

• Highlight public records (mutation, taxes, loan documents, revenue certificates, commercial conversion, electricity, gift, sale).

• Mention the 2014 High Court order reaffirming possession.

• Add that plaintiffs slept over their rights and hence are estopped by acquiescence and waiver.

1. File Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint as time-barred, supported by certified documents showing continuous possession since 1995/2006.

2. Alternative Defence (Even if Court Holds Co-ownership):
   Argue that any claim is confined to a symbolic share, and no actual possession can be disturbed after 12 years’ exclusive occupation and improvements.

3. Collect and Produce Evidence:

• Property tax receipts, mutation orders, bank-loan papers, development permission, electricity and water bills, photographs, commercial conversion certificate.

• Certified copies of the 2006 decree and 2014 High Court order.

• Affidavits of neighbours or local authorities confirming long-term exclusive possession.

1. Adverse-Possession Computation:
   The 12-year period starts from the date co-sharers knew or ought to have known that your father denied their rights — practically from the 2006 decree or earlier. Therefore, by 2018 the limitation expired. You may safely assert that title has matured by adverse possession.

2. Precaution During Litigation:

• Do not create fresh transfers now; maintain status quo till court orders.

• Keep all payments and taxes in order to strengthen possession records.

• If ancestral property is mixed in the same suit, deal with it separately — ancestral property cannot be claimed by adverse possession among undivided coparceners unless separated long ago.

4. Answers to Your Key Questions

(a) Can purchaser (your father) claim adverse possession?
Yes, provided he shows continuous, hostile, exclusive possession for more than 12 years to the knowledge of co-sharers. The facts strongly support that.

(b) What is the limitation date and “date of knowledge”?
It will be treated as the date when the 2006 decree was passed (when plaintiffs were aware he was in possession) or, at the latest, when the acquisition was quashed in 2014 confirming his ownership. Either way, limitation expired long before 2025.

(c) Is the 2025 partition suit maintainable?
On current facts, it appears barred by limitation, hit by res judicata, and defeated by adverse possession.

5. Immediate Practical Action

1. Engage an experienced civil-property lawyer and prepare:

   • Written statement with all the above pleas.

   • Application under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint.

2. Get certified copies of:

   • 2006 decree

   • 2014 High Court judgment

   • All revenue and municipal records since 2014

   • Gift and sale deeds.

3. Maintain physical possession and continue paying taxes.

Bad news for the purchaser/JD claiming adverse possession:

1. Permanent Injunction (2006) Bars Adverse Possession:
The 2006 permanent injunction decree already restrained the JD from interfering with the co-sharers' rights. The JD cannot claim adverse possession against this injunction decree—courts have ruled that adverse possession cannot override a permanent injunction.​

2. Date of Knowledge & Limitation Period:
The 12-year limitation period for adverse possession under Article 65 of the Limitation Act starts from when the JD's possession becomes adverse (hostile) to the true owner's title. However, this 12-year clock was already running against the JD from 2006 when the injunction was passed.​

3. JD's Continuous Possession After 2006:
Even if the JD held possession continuously from 2006 to 2018 (12 years), the co-sharers could have sued before 2018. But more importantly, the permanent injunction created a legal cloud on the JD's title, preventing adverse possession from maturing.​

4. 2018 Loan, Mutation, and Commercial Conversion:
The JD's actions (loan, revenue mutation, electricity in his name, commercial conversion) do not cure the defect created by the 2006 permanent injunction. These actions are irrelevant because the underlying title remains restricted by court decree.​

5. Your Father's Right:
Your father (co-sharer) is the real owner. The JD cannot claim adverse possession. File a suit within 3 years to enforce the 2006 permanent injunction against all transferees (son, third party) and recover possession.​

Conclusion: Adverse possession is impossible here due to the 2006 injunction decree. Your father should act immediately to recover the property.

Dear Sir,

If your sister (JD’s daughter) has now filed a partition suit including this property, she can only claim if:

• The property is ancestral, or

• Your father had not made a valid self-acquisition before the date of partition.

Since your father purchased it in 1995 from his own funds and not from ancestral income, and has clear revenue title since then, it’s self-acquired.
Therefore, your sister has no birthright in it during his lifetime.
Once gifted to you in 2020, and since your father is alive, the gift is valid, and she cannot claim partition in that property.

Dear Client,
Since your father has been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the property since 1995—holding mutation, tax receipts, electricity, and court orders in his name—he has strong grounds to claim ownership by adverse possession. The 2006 decree only restrained him until partition, but no partition suit was filed for over 25 years, making the present 2025 claim likely time-barred. In the new case, your father should file a written statement pleading adverse possession, limitation, and estoppel, and produce all documentary evidence showing long, uninterrupted possession and ownership acts. The court can be requested to reject the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by limitation.
I hope this answer helps. For any more queries, do not hesitate to contact us.

Your father's position is strong but not invincible. The 2006 decree is a significant hurdle, but it is not the end of the road. The plaintiffs (co-sharers) have been legally negligent for nearly 20 years by not filing for partition, which works in your father's favor.

The core legal question is: Does the 2006 permanent injunction prevent your father from acquiring rights through adverse possession or from dealing with the property? The answer is nuanced.

Critical Legal Analysis & Arguments

1. The 2006 Decree: Its Meaning and Limits

The 2006 decree declared the plaintiffs as co-shares and restrained your father from "interfering" with the suit land until a partition is done. This means:

• It recognized their legal right as co-owners.

• It did NOT grant them possession. The cross-examination where they admitted to "not in possession" is crucial.

• It was an injunction against "interference," not an order for possession. Your father, being in possession, was prevented from ousting the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs were also not given possession.

2. The Powerful Argument of Adverse Possession

Your father has a very strong potential claim for Adverse Possession.

• What is Adverse Possession? It is a legal principle where a person in possession of a property for a continuous, long period (12+ years in India) can acquire ownership, even against the legal owner, if their possession is:

  1. Hostile/Adverse: Contrary to the true owner's title.

  2. Open & Notorious: Done in the open, without secrecy.

  3. Continuous & Uninterrupted: For the entire statutory period.

• Why it Applies Here:

  • Hostile Possession Started in 2006: The 2006 decree made the possession of your father expressly hostile to the plaintiffs. They knew their rights, a court confirmed them, and yet your father remained in exclusive, continuous possession.

  • More than 18 Years of Continuous Possession: From 2006 to 2025 is 19 years, far exceeding the 12-year requirement.

  • Overt Acts of Ownership: Your father's actions are classic evidence of adverse possession:

    • Fighting and winning the land acquisition case (2012-2014) to protect his property.

    • Taking loans for development (2018).

    • Getting all revenue records, tax receipts, electricity connections in his name (2018).

    • Converting land to commercial use (2018).

    • Executing a Gift Deed (2020) and subsequent sale (2025) – these are clear, public declarations of ownership.

The plaintiffs' failure to file for partition for 19 years after the decree is fatal to their claim. The law does not protect those who "sleep on their rights."

3. The Validity of Subsequent Transfers

The plaintiffs will argue that the Gift Deed (2020) and Sale Deed (2025) by your father and his son are void as they were done in violation of the injunction.

Your Counter-Argument: The injunction was to not "interfere" with the plaintiffs' possession. Since the plaintiffs were never in possession, these transactions did not interfere with their rights. Furthermore, these acts are evidence of the continuous, hostile possession required for adverse possession. The transferees (buyers) can also claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value, though this is weaker given the existing decree.

Recommended Legal Strategy & Next Steps

You must fight the new partition suit aggressively. Do not take a defensive approach.

1. File a Detailed Written Statement (WS): This is your primary defense document. It must include:
* Admission of 2006 Decree: Admit it but clarify its limited scope (it only declared rights, did not grant possession).
* Plea of Adverse Possession: This should be your main and central defense. Plead specifically that your father has become the absolute owner by virtue of continuous, hostile, and open adverse possession for over 12 years since the 2006 decree.
* Highlight Plaintiffs' Inaction: Emphasize the 19-year delay between the 2006 decree and the 2025 suit, arguing that their rights are stale and they are guilty of laches (unreasonable delay).
* Counter the Injunction: Argue that the injunction only prevented interference with their possession, which was non-existent. Your father's acts of development and sale were exercises of his own ownership rights that had matured by then.

2. File an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: This is a crucial tactical move.
* Ground: The new partition suit is barred by law (the Law of Limitation Act, 1963).
* Argument: The right to sue for partition accrued in 2006 when they were declared co-shares. The limitation period for filing such a suit is 12 years. They filed in 2025, which is 19 years later. Therefore, the suit is time-barred.
* Benefit: If successful, the suit is dismissed at the outset without a full trial.

3. File a Separate Title Suit (if advised by your lawyer):
* Consider filing a separate suit seeking a declaration that your father is the absolute owner by Adverse Possession. This puts maximum pressure on the plaintiffs.

Conclusion and Final Advice

Yes, a claim of Adverse Possession is not only possible but is your strongest legal defense.

The plaintiffs have a paper decree from 2006, but your father has the reality of possession, development, and legal victories for the last 19 years. The law favors those who actively protect and use their property.

Immediate Action:

1. Hire a competent civil lawyer specializing in property litigation, specifically with experience in adverse possession cases.

2. Gather ALL documents: The 2006 decree, all revenue records (mutation, tax receipts), High Court order from 2014, loan documents, gift deed, sale deed, and any evidence of physical possession and development (photos, bills for borewell, etc.).

3. Instruct your lawyer to build the defense around Adverse Possession and Limitation.

Do not compromise. The factual timeline you provided creates a very compelling case for your father to be declared the full owner, extinguishing the rights of the other co-shares.

Q. Purchaser claime advares possession and date of knowledge limitation period against purchaser

The Core Legal Principle

For a purchaser (or anyone claiming adverse possession), the 12-year limitation period does not start from the date they first entered the property. Instead, it starts from the date the true owner's right to sue for recovery of possession accrues.

For a purchaser, this translates to a crucial date: the date their title is officially challenged or the date the true owner gains knowledge of the hostile claim and has the right to eject them.

Scenario Analysis: When Does the 12-Year Clock Start?

Let's apply this to different common situations involving a purchaser.

Scenario 1: Purchaser buys from a person who did NOT have full title (e.g., from one co-owner).

• Facts: 'A' and 'B' are brothers and co-owners of a property. 'A' sells the entire property to 'X' (the Purchaser) without 'B's consent. 'X' takes possession.

• When does 'B's right to sue accrue? It accrues immediately on the date of the sale, because that is the moment 'A' and 'X' have acted in a manner hostile to 'B's title. 'B' can immediately file a suit for partition and possession.

• Start of Adverse Possession for 'X': The 12-year period for 'X' to claim adverse possession against 'B' starts from the date of his purchase and possession.

• "Date of Knowledge": In this case, it is assumed 'B' has knowledge because the sale is an overt act. Even if 'B' finds out later, the clock generally starts from the date of the hostile act (the sale).

Scenario 2: Purchaser is in possession, but the true owner's title is confirmed by a court decree.

• Facts: This is similar to your original query. A court passes a decree (like the 2006 injunction in your case) declaring the plaintiffs as co-owners and restraining the purchaser.

• When does the right to sue accrue? The right to sue for actual partition and separate possession accrues on the date of the decree. The decree makes the purchaser's possession expressly and unequivocally hostile.

• Start of Adverse Possession: The 12-year period for the purchaser to claim adverse possession against the decree-holders starts from the date of that court decree.

• "Date of Knowledge": The decree is a formal, legal communication. The date of the decree is the definitive "date of knowledge" for both parties.

Scenario 3: Purchaser is in open, continuous possession, but the true owner is unaware.

• Facts: 'X' purchases a property from someone with a defective title and starts living there, developing the land openly. The true owner 'O' lives abroad and is unaware.

• When does 'O's right to sue accrue? The law states that the right to sue accrues when the possession becomes adverse to the true owner. However, for the clock to start, the possession must be open and notorious enough that the true owner, if diligent, could have discovered it.

• Start of Adverse Possession: The 12-year period can start from the date the purchaser's possession became open and hostile, even if the true owner is not actually aware. However, if the owner can prove the possession was secretive or they had no way of knowing, the clock may not start until they actually discover it.

• "Date of Knowledge": This is the most contested date. It is often the date the true owner gains actual knowledge of the hostile possession or the date when a reasonable person should have known due to the open nature of the acts (e.g., construction, change of revenue records).

Summary Table for a Purchaser

Key Takeaway for Your Case

Based on your previous facts, the purchaser (your father) is in Scenario 2.

• The 2006 decree was the definitive point where the co-shares' rights were declared and your father's possession became legally hostile to them.

• Therefore, the 12-year period for your father to mature his adverse possession claim started in 2006.

• Since the co-shares filed their partition suit in 2025 (19 years later), your father can argue two things:

  1. The suit is time-barred because the co-shares should have filed for partition within 12 years of the 2006 decree (i.e., by 2018).

  2. He has acquired title by adverse possession because he has been in continuous, hostile possession for over 12 years since the right to sue accrued to the co-shares in 2006.

Legal Maxim & Citation

The law is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963.

• Article 65: Provides for a 12-year limitation period for a suit for possession of immovable property based on title. The period begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.

• Supreme Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2009): The Court has reiterated the principles, stating that adverse possession requires a clear and unequivocal assertion of a hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner, and the period of limitation starts running from that date.

Conclusion: For a purchaser, the "date of knowledge" that starts the limitation period is typically the date of the overt, hostile act (like a sale or a court decree) that makes the true owner aware, or should have made them aware, that their title is being challenged. From that date, the purchaser must remain in continuous, hostile possession for 12 years to extinguish the true owner's title.

Your father has a strong defence. He can claim ownership by adverse possession since he’s been in open, continuous possession for 25+ years. The co-sharers never claimed their share, so the case is barred by limitation. File a written statement citing adverse possession, limitation, and ownership documents (mutation, tax, loan, etc.) to protect his rights.

You have sought legal advice following the institution of a partition and separate possession suit filed in 2025 by your daughter, in which she has included both the property purchased by you in 1995 and certain ancestral properties. You have further informed that the property in question has remained in your exclusive possession for nearly three decades, with all revenue entries, mutations, loan documentation, land conversion records, tax receipts, and public authorities consistently recognising you as the sole possessor and owner. You also executed a gift deed in favour of your son in 2020, and he subsequently executed a sale deed in 2025 pursuant to a compromise decree in court.

Based on the facts placed before us, the present suit appears legally weak and vulnerable to multiple grounds of defence including limitation, adverse possession, estoppel, acquiescence, and the binding nature of registered transactions. Although there existed a 2006 decree declaring the original plaintiffs as co-sharers and restraining you from interference until a proper partition suit was filed, no such suit was ever filed within the statutory period. The decree did not declare title nor determine shares, but only imposed a conditional restraint. The long inaction by the other side, coupled with your uninterrupted sole dominion over the property, now operates in your favour.

Under the Limitation Act, a suit for partition by a co-sharer who has been ousted or kept out of possession must ordinarily be filed within twelve years from the date when exclusion becomes known. The record of government proceedings, mutation entries, High Court litigation in 2012–2014, your sanctioned loan, land use conversion, and other acts of ownership constitute clear evidence that the fact of your exclusive possession was publicly known for many years. The institution of the present suit after almost twenty-five years is therefore prima facie barred by limitation both under Article 110 (partition) and Article 65 (recovery of possession based on title), read with Section 27 of the Act which extinguishes title when the limitation period expires.

The law relating to adverse possession, particularly after the Constitution Bench decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur (2019), enables a defendant in your position not only to resist the suit but also to seek a positive declaration that title has been perfected by long, hostile, open, continuous and exclusive possession. Courts have consistently held that possession supported by revenue records, tax payment, sanctioned loans, construction, and transfers by registered deed is sufficient to establish the hostile animus required to perfect title. The 2006 injunction decree does not interrupt the continuity of possession, as it did not divest you of possession nor determine any definite share in favour of the plaintiffs. Mere existence of a decree without execution does not prevent the law of limitation from operating.

The registered gift deed executed by you in favour of your son in 2020 and the subsequent registered sale deed in 2025 are also protected by law. Any challenge to registered instruments on grounds of fraud or want of authority must be brought within three years from the date of knowledge, and cannot be casually set aside in a partition suit after decades of acquiescence. A transferee from a person in settled possession is protected under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the courts generally do not unsettle long-standing transfers when limitation and adverse possession have intervened.

In view of the above, the appropriate legal strategy is as follows. You should file a written statement raising the preliminary objection that the suit is barred by limitation and does not disclose a cause of action. You may further file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint on the same grounds. In the alternative or in addition, you may file a counterclaim seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession and confirmation of the gift and sale deeds already executed. All documentary evidence relating to possession, government proceedings, loan, revenue entries, tax receipts, electricity and water connections, land conversion orders, and High Court judgment quashing land acquisition should be annexed at the earliest stage.

You are advised not to concede joint possession at any stage, as that would defeat your defence on limitation. All pleadings must clearly assert hostile, exclusive possession to the knowledge of the plaintiffs for more than the statutory period. Further action is time-sensitive, as delay in filing your defence may result in adverse procedural consequences.

Kindly confirm if you would like us to prepare the written statement, Order VII Rule 11 application, and counterclaim on your behalf. Upon your approval, drafts will be shared along with a list of documents required for filing.