Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1014 (JHR)

Md. Anwar Ali v. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.

2006-08-03

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
Order Heard. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 acquired title and possession of the suit land and other lands, under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. After the said lands vested under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, it became statutory lessee under respondent no. 2-State Government. Plaintiff filed this suit for declaring title of the respondent no. 2 as absolute owner and the plaintiff as lessee over the suit land under the respondent no. 2 and for recovery of possession etc. The suit was decreed. The first appellate court affirmed the decree. Hence this second appeal. 3. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, submitted that suit was barred by limitation as the same was under Article 64 of the Limitation Act (the Act for short) and even if such point was not seriously raised before the courts below, the courts should have recorded a finding as to under which article the suit was governed. He further submitted that there is no finding that plaintiff-respondent No.1 was in possession prior to filing of the suit for twelve years. However, he submitted that if it is found that the suit is governed under Article 65, the appellant has got no case. 4. The plaintiff-respondent was noticed on such point. 5. Mr. Mishra, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1, submitted that the suit was not governed under Article 64 of the Act. He further submitted that the appellant-defendant contested the suit by claiming title on the basis of a purported agreement of sale but the courts below found that he did not derive any title and even his alleged seller had no title. He further submitted that the appellant could not prove his adverse possession. Relying on 1987 PLJR 70 Smt. Kuleshwari Devi vs. Most. Jagdamba Devi, he further submitted that limitation, for filing suit will start running from the date of final order and not from the date of preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that 144 Cr. P.C. proceeding was initiated at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant, on the basis of a report dated 28.1.1977. The case was converted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. under the order dated 26.3.1979 and the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was declared. However, after the matter was remanded by the High Court, the possession of defendant-appellant was declared by order dated 28.1.1985. The case was converted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. under the order dated 26.3.1979 and the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was declared. However, after the matter was remanded by the High Court, the possession of defendant-appellant was declared by order dated 28.1.1985. He further submitted that defendant-appellant could not prove that he was in continuous possession after a criminal case was filed against him in the year 1974 for tresspass. He lastly submitted that defendant-appellant rightly did not raise this question seriously before the courts below but now having failed on all scores, he is trying to delay the matter by raising such frivolous issue. 6. Article 64 applies when a suit is filed for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title; whereas Article 65 applies when a suit is filed for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. Apparently, this suit was filed for recovery of possession of immovable property based on interest acquired therein by virtue of statutory lease from the State Government. The plaintiff had acquired the suit land and other lands under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. After coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, plaintiff became statutory lessee. 7. From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it is clear that the suit is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and that it was not barred by limitation. 8. Both the courts after correctly appreciating the evidence decreed the suit. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.