A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the applicability of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding possession suits for immovable property. The plaintiff claimed ownership of land allegedly donated by his father in 1958 for a public veterinary hospital. The defendants (State) argued that the land was donated and the hospital constructed in the same year, making any subsequent claim barred by limitation. Courts examined issues of adverse possession, validity of gift deeds, and whether mere entries in revenue records confer title. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court, reaffirming the State’s rights based on decades of uncontested possession and public use of the land.

Keywords: Limitation Act, Adverse Possession, Ownership, Evidence Act, Gift Deed

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through LRs

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7379 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date: 10 July 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

vi) Author: Vikram Nath, J.

vii) Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2434

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 65, Limitation Act, 1963
• Section 110, Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 14.09.2018 in RSA No. 447 of 2004.

x) Case is Related to: Civil Law, specifically the law on limitation and property rights.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over land allegedly donated by the respondent’s father for public use in 1958. The land in question was utilized for a veterinary hospital constructed by the State. Decades later, the plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for possession, asserting his ownership and alleging unauthorized possession by the State. While the Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, subsequent appeals swung the verdict between the parties before landing in the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• The disputed land, measuring 2176.6 square yards, was allegedly donated in 1958 by the plaintiff’s father for constructing a veterinary hospital.
• The hospital was constructed in 1958-59 with State funding and has been operational since.
• The plaintiff became aware of the hospital at least by 1981, evidenced by his inquiries to the Tehsildar.
• Despite this, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession in 2001, nearly 43 years after the land’s donation.
• The State argued that the donation of land was consensual, and the possession was lawful.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
2. Whether the State’s claim of ownership was supported by adverse possession or the gift deed.
3. Whether continued entries in revenue records conferred ownership upon the plaintiff.
4. Whether the burden of proof of ownership rested with the plaintiff or the defendant.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Limitation Period: The plaintiff’s claim for possession was barred under Article 65, as the State had been in possession since 1958.
2. Adverse Possession: The State had lawfully acquired possession through donation and subsequently through continuous, uncontested public use for over 12 years.
3. Burden of Proof: Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, the plaintiff had the burden to prove ownership, which he failed to discharge.
4. Public Purpose: The hospital’s construction and continuous operation for decades corroborated the gift’s legitimacy.
5. Vagueness of Plaintiff’s Plea: The plaintiff deliberately omitted material particulars in his pleadings to bypass limitation laws.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Adverse Possession Inapplicable: The State cannot claim adverse possession over public land.
2. No Valid Gift Deed: The State failed to produce a registered gift deed or sufficient evidence of the alleged donation.
3. Revenue Records: Entries in the records confirmed the plaintiff’s ownership, which carried a presumption of correctness under the law.
4. Timely Awareness: The plaintiff acted within limitation upon becoming aware of the hospital in 2000.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. The suit for possession was barred by limitation as the State’s possession became adverse to the plaintiff decades earlier, even by the plaintiff’s admission of awareness in 1981.
2. The plaintiff’s ownership claims based solely on revenue records were insufficient as such records do not confer title.
3. The plaintiff had the burden to prove ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which he failed to do.
4. Vagueness in pleadings aimed at circumventing limitation was impermissible.

b) Obiter Dicta

1. Reliance on adverse possession by the State was unnecessary as lawful possession was established through the donation.
2. Lack of action by the original owner and the plaintiff over decades indicated tacit acknowledgment of the donation.

c) Guidelines

1. In suits involving public land, courts must scrutinize attempts to override limitation laws.
2. The burden of proving ownership rests on claimants contesting long-standing possession by others.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to limitation laws and the evidentiary burden on claimants in possession disputes. The ruling clarified that public use and prolonged possession can strengthen the State’s claims over disputed properties, even in the absence of formalized documents like registered gift deeds. This judgment also reflects judicial skepticism toward attempts to bypass procedural requirements through vague and incomplete pleadings.

J) REFERENCES

1. Chuharmal v. CIT, [1988] 3 SCR 788
2. Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale, [2007] 8 SCR 178
3. Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, [2008] 5 SCR 331
4. State of Kerala v. Joseph, [2023] SCC Online SC 961
5. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors., [2011] 14 SCR 211
6. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India, [2004] 10 SCC 779