I purchased a revenue site from A (original owner of the layout) during 1995. While the adjacent revenue site purchased by a person say B, from the son of A. Though the son of A did not have any ownership and katha in his name, he created false katha and sold the adjacent site to B during 1985., without the knowledge of his father who was alive at that time. Subsequently the the person B gifted the same site to his daughter during 2003.
During 2007 the person B fenced his vacant site encroaching our site to a tune of 200 sq ft. Then only I came to know the illegal transaction of the son of A.
As such I approached the lower court, as the person B did not obliged for any type of compromise.
In the lower court the case was dismissed during 2013. Then I approached the high court and got stay for illegal encroachment. Presently the case is in the high court. I am not certain that I would get justice as some people say as per the limitation act though the person be B purchased the site from the son of A(without proper ownership of the site), in view of fact that I filed case only after 12 years in court from the date of purchase. Kindly advise me the impact of limitation act in this case.
Asked 2 years ago in Property Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
you have stated encroachment happened in 2007 . . when did you file case ?
what was the reason for dismissal of case by lower court in 2013 ? what were the reliefs claimed by you in trial court ? please clarify .
Schedule I of The Limitation Act prescribes a limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of
immovable property or any interest therein based on title. It is important to note that the starting
point of limitation of 12 years is counted from the point of time “when the possession of the
defendants becomes adverse to the plaintiff”he Supreme Court of India, has in two recent decisions, namely, Hemaji Waghaji vs.
Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai 15 and State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar16, has pointed out the need
to have a fresh look at the law of adverse possession. Borrowing the language from the
judgment of the High Court (Chancery Division) of England in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. vs.
Graham17, the Supreme Court in the former case, described the law of adverse possession as
irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate and extremely harsh for the true owner “and a
windfall for dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property
since you did not take any legal proceedings for 12 years claim would be barred by limitation
ur chances of bit tough and needs detail study to suggest u the solution documents needs to be verified
with the facts you have presented, there is certainly no limitation that hits your case. however, after looking into the suit filed before the Trail court, the evidence lead and the appeal preferred, we can suggest the best possible way to succeed.
If both the properties are overlapping each other you need to seek declaration of your rights on the property. Approach a competent lawyer and fight out the case by providing proper details.