Skip to content


Brijlal Sahu and ors. Vs. Rameshar Sahu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.812
AppellantBrijlal Sahu and ors.
RespondentRameshar Sahu and ors.
Excerpt:
adverse possession - burden of proving possession within 12 years--landlord and tenant--pleadings--denial of title. - - (1882) 40. it is, however, contended on behalf of the respondents that as the defendants pleaded limitation and denied the ownership of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in order to succeed were not only bound to prove title but also proprietary possession within twelve years and as they failed to prove such possession their suit was rightly dismissed. (1901) 188. 4. in the present case, as the defendants did not admit the ownership of the plaintiffs and pleaded limitation, the burden of proving ownership as well as possession within twelve years undoubtedly lay on the plaintiffs and not on the defendants......not the tenants of the plaintiffs and that the suit was barred by limitation as they had been in adverse possession for more than twelve years before suit.2. the court of first instance found that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs had not been in possession within twelve years of the institution of the suit, and that the suit, was barred by limitation.3. on these findings the court of first instance dismissed the claim. the court of first appeal confirmed the decree of the court of first instance. the plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this court and it is argued by their learned vakil that as the defendants set up adverse title the burden of proving that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation lay on them. in support of this.....
Judgment:

Karamat Hussain, J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arose was for possession of certain land and for arrears of rent on the allegation that the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they were not the tenants of the plaintiffs and that the suit was barred by limitation as they had been in adverse possession for more than twelve years before suit.

2. The Court of first instance found that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs had not been in possession within twelve years of the institution of the suit, and that the suit, was barred by limitation.

3. On these findings the Court of first instance dismissed the claim. The Court of first appeal confirmed the decree of the Court of first instance. The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court and it is argued by their learned Vakil that as the defendants set up adverse title the burden of proving that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation lay on them. In support of this contention he relied on Motar v. Dipa A.W.N. (1882) 40. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondents that as the defendants pleaded limitation and denied the ownership of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in order to succeed were not only bound to prove title but also proprietary possession within twelve years and as they failed to prove such possession their suit was rightly dismissed. Reliance is placed on Haji Khan v. Baldeo Das A.W.N. (1901) 188.

4. In the present case, as the defendants did not admit the ownership of the plaintiffs and pleaded limitation, the burden of proving ownership as well as possession within twelve years undoubtedly lay on the plaintiffs and not on the defendants. Had the defendants admitted that their possession at its inception was of a permissive nature, they would have been bound to prove their title by adverse possession. But in the present case their pleadings could not throw the burden of proving adverse possession on them. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //