advocatemmmohan

Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 64 — Suit for possession based on previous possession — Nature and scope — Possessory title distinguished from proprietary title

Section 64 contemplates a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title, if brought within 12 years from the date of dispossession — Such suit is one based on possessory title as distinguished from proprietary title — Settled or effective possession without title entitles a person to protect such possession — However, plaintiff must establish settled possession — On facts, plaintiff failed to prove settled possession — Suit liable to dismissal.
(Paras 8, 13, 15, 16, 19)

Possession — Settled possession — Meaning and requirements —

Settled possession means possession which has existed for a sufficiently long period and has been acquiesced to by the true owner — Such possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without concealment — Must contain element of animus possidendi — Mere stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not constitute settled possession — Casual possession does not interrupt possession of rightful owner.
(Para 13)

Possession — Protection of peaceful possession — Even against true owner —

Law protects peaceful and settled possession — Rightful owner cannot dispossess by force and must take recourse to law — In absence of proof of better title, prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.
(Paras 10, 11, 12)

Evidence — Burden of proof —

Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own case and not on weakness of defendant’s case — To claim possessory title, plaintiff must prove settled possession and better title — Absence of documentary proof of possession fatal — Minor discrepancies in defendant’s evidence immaterial.
(Paras 17, 19)

Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope of interference —

High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by First Appellate Court unless perverse or contrary to material on record — First Appellate Court being final court of fact.
(Para 18)

CASE ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the Suit

The suit was filed for declaration of title and possession based on alleged prior possession. Plaintiff admitted absence of documentary title and admitted dispossession prior to filing of suit. Claim was based on possessory title under Section 64 of the Limitation Act.

2. Core Issues

Whether plaintiff proved better title?
Whether plaintiff proved settled possession?
Whether High Court was justified in interfering with findings of First Appellate Court?

3. Supreme Court’s Examination

The Court:

Referred to jurisprudential principles of possession (Para 9).
Relied upon Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and
Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Para 10–12).
Clarified meaning of “settled possession” (Para 13).
Analysed evidence relied upon by plaintiff (Paras 15–16).
Found no proof of continuous, effective possession.
Reiterated burden of proof principles (Para 17).

4. Factual Finding

Plaintiff relied on:

Rent note (Ex.1)
Alleged fire incident
Motor vehicle body lying on land

Court held these did not establish settled possession.

First Appellate Court correctly found defendants proved title and possession.

High Court erred in interfering.

RATIO DECIDENDI

A suit under Section 64 of the Limitation Act is based on previous possession and not proprietary title. (Para 8)
Settled possession must be effective, undisturbed, with animus possidendi, and acquiesced by true owner. Stray acts do not constitute settled possession. (Para 13)
Law protects peaceful settled possession even against rightful owner, but claimant must first prove such possession. (Paras 10–12)
Plaintiff must prove his own case; cannot succeed on weakness of defendant. (Paras 17, 19)
High Court cannot interfere with factual findings of First Appellate Court unless perverse. (Para 18)

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Sunday, February 15, 2026