High Court
Case Details
Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 (cid:1)me. His father had died in 1998 and therea(cid:19)er, it was inherited by him. Plain(cid:1)ff alleged that in the month of November, 2009, when he was away from his home, the defendant forcibly took possession thereof and installed his old electricity meter connec(cid:1)on in the plot from other residen(cid:1)al house and also started raising construc(cid:1)on on the disputed property without having any right to do so. Plain(cid:1)ff prayed for decree of possession. 5. Defendant in wri’en statement disputed the claim of the plain(cid:1)ff. According to him, father of the plain(cid:1)ff had sold the suit property to him (defendant) vide an unregistered sale deed/full payment agreement dated 05.06.1993 and had delivered physical possession thereof. A(cid:19)er taking possession, defendant raised construc(cid:1)on thereon, installed electricity connec(cid:1)on in name of his son and ever since then, he is using the same being owner in possession thereof. He also claimed that his possession over the suit property was hos(cid:1)le to the knowledge of father of the plain(cid:1)ff (cid:1)ll 1998 and therea(cid:19)er to the knowledge of the plain(cid:1)ff, which is now more than 12 years and therefore, in alterna(cid:1)ve, he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par(cid:1)es was taken on record. Trial Court found that vide a full payment agreement (Ex.D1), father of the plain(cid:1)ff had sold the suit property to the defendant on 05.06.1993, which not only bears the thumb impression of Cha’ar Singh, the father of the plain(cid:1)ff, but also the signatures of plain(cid:1)ff himself as an a’es(cid:1)ng witness. It was further found that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the defendant at that (cid:1)me. The asser(cid:1)on of the plain(cid:1)ff to the effect that he was dispossessed by the defendant in 2009 was held to be not proved. It was thus found that defendant had purchased the suit property by virtue of an unregistered sale deed. It was also held that plea of adverse possession as claimed by the defendant was not available to him. However, the plain(cid:1)ff was non-suited on the ground that he did not have any cause of ac(cid:1)on or locus standi and that he had not come to the Court with clean hands. With these findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 7.
Legal Reasoning
Before the First Appellate Court, conten(cid:1)on was raised on behalf of the appellant-plain(cid:1)ff that possession of the defendant over the suit property was permissive. Said conten(cid:1)on of the appellant was found by the Appellate court to be contrary to para No.3 of the plaint, in which it was clearly alleged by the plain(cid:1)ff that defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit property in 2009, when he was away from the village. First Appellate Court further held that trial Court had rightly held that plain(cid:1)ff was estopped from filing the present suit, as by virtue of Ex.D1, his father had sold the property through an unregistered document, but by denying the execu(cid:1)on thereof, and by claiming that he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendant, plain(cid:1)ff had not come to the Court with clean hands and that he did not have any locus standi or cause of ac(cid:1)on to file the suit. Affirming the findings of the trial Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plain(cid:1)ff vide judgment dated 11.04.2022. 8. Assailing the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that document Ex.D1 on which the Courts below have relied, is an unstamped and unregistered document and therefore, it cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever, in view of Sec(cid:1)on 35 of the Stamp Act and Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the
Legal Reasoning
Registra(cid:1)on Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to “ Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra”, Law Finder Doc Id # 178470. It is further contended that mere delivery of possession without registered instrument cannot confer any (cid:1)tle of the immovable property worth more than ₹100/- and as such, defendant cannot claim to have become owner of the property in dispute on the strength of Ex.D1. S(cid:1)ll further, it is argued that since Ex.D1 is unregistered instrument, therefore, defendant cannot protect his possession, as there is nothing to show that a(cid:19)er execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 on 05.06.1993, defendant had done anything in part performance of the agreement (Ex.D1). For this purpose, learned counsel has referred to “Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (Dead) by LRs and others” Supreme Court Cases (2002) 3 SCC and “A. Manicka Mudaliar v. Murugesa Mudaliar and another”, 2012-2 Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 L.W. 28 (High Court of Madras). Contending that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the factual and legal posi(cid:1)on in right perspec(cid:1)ve; and with the aforesaid submissions, counsel for the appellant prayed for seAng aside the impugned judgments of the Courts below and to accept the present appeal, thereby decreeing the suit of the plain(cid:1)ff-appellant. 9. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have appraised the en(cid:1)re record including the trial Court record carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that earlier Cha’ar Singh, the father of the plain(cid:1)ff was the owner of the suit property. According to defendant, the father of the plain(cid:1)ff had sold the said property to him (defendant) by virtue of an unregistered sale deed dated 05.06.1993 (Ex.D1). Perusal of Ex.D1 reveals that it is purported to have been executed by Cha’ar Singh, i.e. father of the plain(cid:1)ff in favour of defendant – Mahinder. It is not only signed by Ramphal, Sarpanch of the village, but further a’ested by Dhoop Singh, Sube Singh and also by plain(cid:1)ff Suresh himself. Although, plain(cid:1)ff – Suresh in his tes(cid:1)mony denied the execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 by his father and even denied his own signature on the said document, but he admi’ed that Ramphal, used to be Sarpanch of the village in the year 1993 and that Sube Singh and Dhoop Singh belong to his village. 11. Defendant – Mahinder in his tes(cid:1)mony not only proved the execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 by father of the plain(cid:1)ff, he also deposed that said Ex.D1 was scribed by Ramphal, Sarpanch. Defendant had also examined not only Ramphal, Sarpanch as DW2, but further examined another witness, namely, Dhoop Singh as DW6, both of whom proved the execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 by Cha’ar Singh, the father of the plain(cid:1)ff in favour of the defendant. Not only this, defendant further examined Sh. B.N. Srivastav, Handwri(cid:1)ng & Finger Print Expert as DW7, who a(cid:19)er comparing the admi’ed signature of plain(cid:1)ff with the disputed signature on Ex.D1 proved that Ex.D1 is signed by the plain(cid:1)ff. Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 12. Thus, it stands proved that the plain(cid:1)ff himself was signatory to the wri(cid:1)ng Ex.D1, whereby his father Cha’ar Singh had sold the suit property to the defendant. Learned counsel of the appellant has not seriously disputed the findings of the trial Court in this regard, i.e. the execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 by the father of the appellant in favour of the respondent-defendant. 13. It is further important to note that as per the case of the plain(cid:1)ff, in 2009, defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit property. However, in his cross-examina(cid:1)on, plain(cid:1)ff-PW1 candidly admi’ed that electricity meter was got installed in the suit property by defendant – Mahinder 10-12 years back, whereas the suit was filed by him two years back, which means that the electricity connec(cid:1)on was installed by the defendant in the suit property at least 10 years prior to filing of the suit. Since the tes(cid:1)mony of plain(cid:1)ff was recorded in October, 2014, it means that the said electricity meter was taken at least in 2002 or prior thereto. Defendant had also produced DW4 Jaipal, an official of the Electricity Department, who corroborated the statement of defendant to the effect that the electricity connec(cid:1)on had been released in the year 1998 in the name of Rajesh, son of defendant - Mahinder in the suit property. 14. Thus, it stands established that the possession of suit property was delivered to the defendant in 1993 a(cid:19)er execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1. The said fact is also men(cid:1)oned in Ex.D1 that possession had been delivered to the vendee – Mahinder. It is very important to no(cid:1)ce that although in the plaint, plain(cid:1)ff claimed his forcible dispossession in 2009, but before the First Appellate Court, he took the plea that defendant was in permissive possession of the suit property, without explaining as to in what circumstances and when the permissive possession was given. The said contradictory stand as taken by the plain(cid:1)ff is absolutely irreconcilable and so, he cannot be believed in this regard. 15. Now once it is proved that suit property was sold in 1993 by the father of the plain(cid:1)ff to the defendant by virtue of an unregistered document and that possession of the defendant is fully established on the suit property Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 since much prior to the filing of the suit, the en(cid:1)re case revolves around the effect of an unregistered document Ex.D1. Ex.D1 has been wri’en on ₹10/- stamp paper. By virtue of this document, suit property had been sold for considera(cid:1)on of ₹25,000/- and possession delivered to the vendee, i.e. defendant. Since the document is unregistered, there can be no doubt in holding that defendant on the basis of Ex.D1 cannot claim to have become owner of the suit property because any unregistered document transferring immovable property of more than ₹100/-, cannot convey the (cid:1)tle to the vendee. In Avinash Kumar Chauhan’s case (supra), it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that an under stamped and unregistered sale deed is neither admissible in a suit for specific performance nor for recovery of considera(cid:1)on money nor for any collateral purpose. 16. No doubt, it is true that Ex.D1 is executed on an insufficiently stamp paper, but it is very important to no(cid:1)ce that when Ex.D1 was taken in evidence, no specific objec(cid:1)on was raised on behalf of the plain(cid:1)ff that said document was liable to be not admi’ed in evidence due to it being insufficiently stamped. As such, at this stage, plain(cid:1)ff-appellant cannot be allowed to raise this plea before this court in second appeal for the first (cid:1)me. 17. One of the conten(cid:1)ons raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that since defendant has not performed anything in part performance of Ex.D1, therefore, he is not en(cid:1)tled to protect his possession. 18. In Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi’s case (supra), it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “15. The Special Commi’ee's report which is reflected in the aims and objects of the amending Act, 1929 shows that one of the purposes of enac(cid:1)ng Sec(cid:1)on 53-A was to provide protec(cid:1)on to a transferee who in part- performance of the contract had taken possession of the property even if the limita(cid:1)on to bring a suit for specific performance has expired. In that view of the ma’er, Sec(cid:1)on 53-A is required to be interpreted in the light of the recommenda(cid:1)on of the Special Commi’ee's report and aims, objects contained in the amending Act, 1929 of the Act and specially when Sec(cid:1)on Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 6 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 53-A itself does not put any restric(cid:1)on to plea taken in defence by a transferee to protect his possession under Sec(cid:1)on 53-A even if the period of limita(cid:1)on to bring a suit for specific performance has expired. 16. But there are certain condi(cid:1)ons which are required to be fulfilled if a transferee wants to defend or protect his possession under Sec(cid:1)on 53-A of the Act. The necessary condi(cid:1)ons are: (1) there must be a contract to transfer for considera(cid:1)on of any immovable property; (2) the contract must be in wri(cid:1)ng, signed by the transferor, or by someone on his behalf; (3) the wri(cid:1)ng must be in such words from which the terms necessary to construe the transfer can be ascertained; (4) the transferee must in part-performance of the contract take possession of the property, or of any part thereof; (5) the transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and (6) the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the contract. 17. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the condi(cid:1)ons enumerated above are complied with, the law of limita(cid:1)on does not come in the way of a defendant taking plea under Sec(cid:1)on 53-A of the Act to protect his possession of the suit property even though a suit for specific performance of a contract is barred by limita(cid:1)on.” 19. In A. Manicka Mudaliar’s case (supra), the Madras High Court held that the fulfillment of all the six condi(cid:1)ons as laid down above by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi’s case (supra) is mandatory. 20. A(cid:19)er perusing the en(cid:1)re evidence on record of this case, I find that reliance of learned counsel for the appellant on Sec(cid:1)on 53-A of the Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 7 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 Transfer of the Property Act, which speaks of the part performance of the contract, is absolutely misplaced. 21. Sec(cid:1)on 53A of the Transfer and Property Act deals with part performance, when a person contracts to transfer for considera(cid:1)on any immoveable property in wri(cid:1)ng signed by him. It does not speak of the complete sale. Perusal of Ex.D1 dated 05.06.1993 would reveal that father of the plain(cid:1)ff had sold the suit property to the defendant for considera(cid:1)on of ₹25,000/- and had delivered possession to him. Nothing was required to be done on the part of the defendant as per the document (Ex.D1). The only thing is that the said Ex.D1 is an unregistered document and therefore, Court is required to see the effect of non-registra(cid:1)on of document Ex.D1. 22. It has been rightly observed by the Appellate Court that though this document Ex.D1 purports to convey (cid:1)tle in respect of an immovable property valuing more than ₹100/- and so it cannot be taken into considera- (cid:1)on for the purpose of conveying the (cid:1)tle being an unregistered document but it can certainly be looked into for collateral purposes in view of proviso to Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra(cid:1)on Act, which reads as under: “Effect of non-registra(on of documents required to be registered.— No document required by sec(cid:1)on 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall— (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transac(cid:1)on affec(cid:1)ng such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: Provided that an unregistered document affec(cid:1)ng immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or as evidence of any collateral transac8on not required to be effected by reg- istered instrument.” Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 8 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 23. In “S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram and Others” 2011(1) LJR 712, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purposes, as per Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra- (cid:1)on Act. It was held as under: 11. The main provision in Sec(cid:1)on 49 provides that any document which is re- quired to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evid- ence of any transac(cid:1)on affec(cid:1)ng such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affec(cid:1)ng immovable property and re- quired by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific perform- ance or as evidence of any collateral transac(cid:1)on not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and more could be admi’ed in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be ad- mi’ed in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transac(cid:1)on not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Sec(cid:1)on 49 of 1908 Act. 12. Recently in the case of K.B. Saha and Sons Private Limited v. Develop- ment Consultant Limited (2008) 8 SCC 564, this Court no(cid:1)ced the following statement of Mulla in his Indian Registra(cid:1)on Act, 7th Edi(cid:1)on, at page 189:- "......The High Courts of Calcu’a, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir; the former Chief Court of Oudh; the Judicial Com- missioner's Court at Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registra- (cid:1)on under Sec(cid:1)on 17 and which is not admissible for want of regis- tra(cid:1)on to prove a gi(cid:19) or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless ad- missible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it......" Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 9 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 This Court then culled out the following principles:- "1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra(cid:1)on Act. 2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of col- lateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra(cid:1)on Act. 3. A collateral transac(cid:1)on must be independent of, or divisible from, the transac(cid:1)on to effect which the law required registra(cid:1)on. 4. A collateral transac(cid:1)on must be a transac(cid:1)on not itself required to be ef- fected by a registered document, that is, a transac(cid:1)on crea(cid:1)ng, etc. any right, (cid:1)tle or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred ru- pees and upwards. 5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registra(cid:1)on, none of its terms can be admi’ed in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose." To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admi’ed in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. 24. It is, thus, clear from the legal posi(cid:1)on as above that though an unregistered document is not admissible into evidence, but it can be used as an evidence for collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra(cid:1)on Act. The collateral transac(cid:1)on must be independent of, or di- visible from, the transac(cid:1)on to effect which, the law required registra(cid:1)on. Thus, a collateral transac(cid:1)on must be a transac(cid:1)on not itself required to be effected by a registered document, i.e., a transac(cid:1)on crea(cid:1)ng, etc. any right, (cid:1)tle or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards. 25. Since in order to deliver possession of immovable property, the document is not required to be registered as per law, therefore, an unregis- tered sale deed Ex.D1 can be taken into considera(cid:1)on for collateral purpose i.e., delivery of possession. In these facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that document Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 10 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 Ex.D1, could have been looked into for collateral purposes in view of proviso to Sec(cid:1)on 49 of the Registra(cid:1)on Act. 26. Apart from above, in “Ude Singh and Ors. v. Ram Chander” 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 41, it has been held by this Court that plain(cid:1)ff is estopped from reclaiming possession on the ground that there was no valid sale deed, when sale deed was an unregistered receipt. It was also held that no (cid:1)tle could be conferred on the basis of such an unregistered deed but Sec(cid:1)on 115 of the Evidence Act estopped the plain(cid:1)ff from claiming possession in lieu thereof. 27. Besides above, this Court further finds that plea of the defendant-respondent to have become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession, has been wrongly negated by the Courts below. 28.1 In “Utha Moidu Haji Vs. Kuningarath Kunhabdulla”(SC) 2006 (14) Scale 156, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a person enters into possession of land under void or voidable transac(cid:1)on, his possession becomes adverse from the date, he comes into possession and that star(cid:1)ng point of limita(cid:1)on of the adverse possession is, when he enters into possession under such a void or voidable transac(cid:1)on. 28.2 In the above case before Hon'ble Supreme Court, defendants No.2 to 8 sold land in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 30.08.1963 not only on their behalf but also on behalf of the minor child (plain(cid:1)ff), in favour of X. Plain(cid:1)ff a’ained majority on 30.07.1974 and filed the suit for seAng aside the sale deed on 18.03.1981. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that plain(cid:1)ff would be deemed to have knowledge about the execu(cid:1)on of the sale deed on his a’aining majority, as soon as he pleaded and proved that his case comes within the purview of the excep(cid:1)on contained in the provisions of Limita(cid:1)on Act. The period of limita(cid:1)on would be either three years from the date of a’aining majority by the plain(cid:1)ff or 12 years from the date of execu(cid:1)on of sale deed. As plain(cid:1)ff had filed the suit a(cid:19)er sleeping for six years over his right to sue, the suit was held to be barred by Ar(cid:1)cle 60 (a) of the Limita(cid:1)on Act. Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 11 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 29. In the present case, as defendant started claiming ownership of suit property on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 05.06.1993 (Ex.D1) and the said document is found to be void being unregistered on account of the fact that it purports to create (cid:1)tle in respect of an immovable property of value more than ₹100/-, therefore, the possession of the defendant became adverse from the very date of execu(cid:1)on of this document, in view of the legal posi(cid:1)on explained in Utha Moidu Hajii’s case (supra). Said possession was open, con(cid:1)nuous and uninterrupted and became hos(cid:1)le to the true owner i.e., father of plain(cid:1)ff since 1993 upon execu(cid:1)on of Ex.D1 and then to the knowledge of the plain(cid:1)ff a(cid:19)er the death of his father in 1998, as defendant had started claiming to be owner of the suit property on basis of Ex.D1, an unregistered document. 30. In case a suit is filed on the basis of inheritance, defendant can set up a plea of adverse possession. In such a case, suit is to be filed within 12 years and the (cid:1)me begins to run, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plain(cid:1)ff, as per Ar(cid:1)cle 65 of the Schedule to the Limita(cid:1)on Act, 1963. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and another Vs. Kashmira Singh 1985 PLJ 82, wherein it was held by a Division Bench of this High Court as under:- “A(cid:19)er hearing the learned counsel for the par(cid:1)es, I find force in the conten(cid:1)on of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is well established principle of law that inheritance does not remain in abeyance and the heirs a(cid:19)er the death of the last male holder succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Kashmira Singh, being the son of Niranjan Singh deceased, was en(cid:1)tled to 1/3rd share in the land in dispute. A(cid:19)er the death of Niranjan Singh, he was not required to file any suit for possession on the basis of inheritance. He had become full owner of his share in the property on the death of the last male holder. For establishing his right as an heir, he was not required to file a suit. However, a situa(cid:1)on may arise when the heir is not in possession of the property inherited. In that event a suit for possession may have to be filed and on contest the same may fail on the defendant proving that he has perfected his (cid:1)tle by adverse possession. It is Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 12 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 such type of suit which is governed by the provisions of Ar(cid:1)cle 65 of the Limita(cid:1)on Act.” 31. In Amar Chandra Vs. Kamla Devi and another, 2015 (51) RCR (Civil) 769, it has been held by Allahabad High Court that on the issue of restora(cid:1)on of possession, limita(cid:1)on would be reckoned from the date, one is dispossessed or when the defendants' possession become adverse. 32. Similarly, in Qadir Bux v. Ramchand and others, AIR 1970 Allahabad 289, the High Court has held that in order to a’ract Ar(cid:1)cle 65, if a person has got possession even if under a void sale, his possession would be adverse to the real owner and by possessing for more than 12 years, he acquires (cid:1)tle by adverse possession. Any ac(cid:1)on against him by real owner has to be filed within 12 years of such possession, otherwise suit for possession would be barred by limita(cid:1)on. For the purpose of a declara(cid:1)on, limita(cid:1)on commences from the date of cause of ac(cid:1)on. Similarly, for the purpose of restora(cid:1)on of possession, limita(cid:1)on would commence from the date from which one is dispossessed or the defendant's possession becomes adverse. 33. In the present case, as it has been found that defendant is in possession since 1993 by virtue of an unregistered document (Ex.D1), which is a void document, as such, his possession is hos(cid:1)le ever since then. His possession has remained peaceful, open, hos(cid:1)le and con(cid:1)nuous to the knowledge of the true owner, i.e. father of plain(cid:1)ff and then plain(cid:1)ff, who had inherited the property from his father Cha’ar Singh. Said possession has matured into the ownership of the defendant a(cid:19)er the expiry of statutory period of 12 years of limita(cid:1)on and as such, the suit filed by the plain(cid:1)ff in 2010 is clearly barred by limita(cid:1)on. 34. Based upon the en(cid:1)re discussion as above, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, but at the same (cid:1)me, it is added that defendant-respondent had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 13 of 14 RSA No.2733 of 2022 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:014238 35. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. January 30, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes Yes Sarita Rani 2025.01.30 17:59 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 14 of 14