Sujauddin and Others vs Babasaheb and Others

M.B. Shah and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.-Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

From the judgment rendered by the trial court, it appears that the trial court considered the following Issue 1 in detail:

"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of his ownership of the disputed field and that he is in possession of it?"

The trial court after considering the evidence on record including revenue records, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants were in possession of the land since 1959 and were cultivating the same. That judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside by the District Judge by holding that the appellants have failed to establish adverse possession because they entered into possession as alleged by them on the basis of agreement for sale. The High Court has confirmed the said finding without discussing the evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court ought to have considered Issue 1 raised by the trial court in the light of Section 27 of the Limitation Act, treating it as a substantial question of law. It is his contention that in view of Section 27, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. He has pointed out that as per admitted facts on record the plaintiff became a major in the year 1970 and the suit was filed in 1984.

In our view, as the High Court has not considered the effect of Section 27 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act and the evidence which was produced on record by the parties, the matter is required to be remitted to the High Court for deciding the substantial question of law involved in the matter.

Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.