Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Limitation by time to file suit for declaration & permanent injuction and suit for possession

1. RAM (Karta) sold part of his land (ancestral land as per existing rules during 1998 when the sale deed was made) under a sale deed to SHAM. Sale deed is registered so its legal and proved in court. It means B holds the title of suit land and has the possession (proved in court). 2. KARAM, son of RAM filed a suit for declaration and injunction against RAM and SHAM. He said sale deed is not legal as land is ancestral. However, legal necessity was proved during the trial ie after the sale deed was signed and it was proved through an affidavit by RAM and by means of witnesses. 3. Trial court gave its decision in favour of RAM and SHAM in 2002. Court said that land is ancestral, legal necessity was proved, KARAM could not his possession and he himself admitted that in the court. 4. RAM died in Jun 2000 during pendency of proceedings. 5. Matter went to 1st appellate court. They just touched on the legal necessity and not on any other point. Decision of trial court was reversed and suit for declaration and injunction was given in Favour of KARAM in 2002. 6. SHAM went to high court. They also touched upon legal necessity and not on other aspects as to who is the title holder and who is in possession of the suit ?. They said we agree to the 1st appellate court in 2017. 7. Aggrieved, SHAM went to Supreme Court in 2017. Matter is in Apex Court now till dt. 1.What is the time limit for KARAM to ask for possession and this time limit starts from which date ? 2.SHAM is the title holder of suit land and also in possession. 3. As per latest ruling, if land is divided than it is not ancestral. Partition Between RAM and his brother was done in 1997, well before the sale deed was signed. Also, RAM claimed his share through partition suit with his brother as his brother had already sold and was in process of selling his share well before actual partition between them.


 3 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate)     17 August 2023

Is this a query or a riddle?

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     17 August 2023

1. Since it was an ancestral property, the son of Ram as a coparcener is entitled for a rightful share in the property. Therefore his claim for his share in the property is not hit by the limitation act. 

2. No doubt if the property was divided/partitioned  earlier, then the nature of ancestral property will extinguish, b ut why did you mention it as ancestral property in your post?

Since the matter is pending before the apex court, you may wait for the decision.



Respected sir 

1. It is an ancestral property as per existing law at that time and KARAM is coparcener and it was also agreed upon by trial, district and High court. I mentioned as ancestral property because selling it requires legal necessity to be proved. 

2.  As you mentioned that he is entitled his share being coparcener. How much share is he entitled now ? as he is the only one who filed case and no other coparcener did so. Infact 2 out of 4 coparceners supported the sale deed.

Thanks sir



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register