12-Year Limitation Period Applies for Declaration of Title with Possession Relief, Not 3 Years : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma held that while the limitation period in a suit generally follows the main relief, this principle does not apply when the main relief sought is a declaration of title, as no limitation exists for such declarations. Instead, the limitation is governed by the provision applicable to any further relief sought.
When a suit combines a declaration of title with a claim for possession, the limitation period is determined by the Article governing possession of immovable property based on title. The Court clarified that a suit for declaration of title remains valid as long as the right to the property subsists, making the relief for declaration a continuing right.
The Court relied on the precedent set in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa (AIR 1961 SC 808), which established that in suits seeking both declaration and further relief, the limitation is governed by the Article applicable to the further relief.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan considered an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment that upheld the amendment of a suit to include possession along with a declaration of title. The trial court had dismissed the suit in 2014, citing a limitation bar under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as the claim for declaration was filed beyond three years of alleged wrongful possession. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the amendment to include possession, applied Article 65, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff’s heirs, granting them 12 years to claim possession unless adverse possession was proved by the defendants.
The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, ruling that the limitation for possession claims based on title is governed by Article 65. It observed that when the plaintiff establishes title and the defendant fails to prove adverse possession, the suit is not time-barred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the plaintiff’s claim.