M/S. ASIAN BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS v. NARSING SWAMI AND ANR
Clarifies the application of limitation periods in adverse possession cases and the burden of proof.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:50440
Decision Date: 13-11-2025
List of Laws
The Limitation Act, 1963
- The Limitation Act, 1963: The judgment extensively discusses the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly in the context of adverse possession and encroachment. Section 2(m) is mentioned, defining "tort". The appellant argued encroachment is a continuing wrong and a tort, impacting limitation. This is significant because it distinguishes between a one-time act and a continuous cause of action. The practical implication is that the limitation period may be extended if the encroachment is ongoing. Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is central to the judgment. It prescribes a 12-year limitation period for possession of immovable property based on title, running from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. The court emphasizes that the burden of proving adverse possession lies on the party claiming it. The significance lies in clarifying when the limitation period commences in adverse possession cases. This has practical implications for property disputes, requiring clear evidence of hostile possession for over 12 years. The court refers to "Rukmini Pandurang Sanstha, Yavatmal (Supra)", to support its interpretation of Article 65. The court also references Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, noting the Trial Judge's view that the limitation period for recovery of possession is 12 years from dispossession or when possession becomes adverse. The court disagrees with the Trial Judge's application of these articles, finding that the issue of adverse possession should have been determined based on evidence. Section 22 is mentioned, though not elaborated upon, in the context of encroachment being a continuing wrong.
🔒 For Members Only