A suit for possession, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant forcibly took possession of the property—The defendant claimed ownership through adverse possession, relying on a full payment agreement—The plaintiff contended that the agreement was not stamped or registered and thus inadmissible—However, the court noted that no objection was raised regarding the document’s admission as evidence—The court examined Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects a transferee in possession under part-performance of a contract, even if the period for filing a suit for specific performance has lapsed—The court concluded that the defendant’s possession was hostile from the time of the sale agreement and that he had perfected his title by adverse possession—The lower court judgments wer...
The appellant-defendant, Smt. Neelam, challenged the dismissal of her appeal against the decree of possession in favor of the respondents-plaintiffs, Abhishek and Ankur, for a residential house—The plaintiffs claimed ownership through a sale deed executed by their grandmother, Kamla Devi, and produced evidence supporting their title, including a mutation sanction—The appellant-defendant contended that the house was constructed using her husband's funds, but failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate this claim—The Courts below found that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners, and the appellant-defendant was merely a licensee whose license had been terminated—The appeal was dismissed as the findings of fact could not be re-appreciated in second appeal, in line with legal precedents—No sub...
Recovery of land from the Government. (A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 6—Recovery of land from the Government—Appeal by Government to impugn order passed by High Court in the second appeal—The appellants contention that plaintiff failed to prove their title and ownership is completely misplaced for the reasons and analysis—Impugned order upheld. (Para 8) (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rules 4, 5—Evasive and Specific Denials—When presumed against the Defendant—In their written statement before the Trial Court, the appellants did not specifically deny the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit property—Instead, they primarily relied on the plea of adverse possession—Under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allegations of fact not denied specifically are...
Petitioner challenged the orders of the Munsiff Court, Kangan, and the Principal District Judge, Ganderbal, which temporarily restrained the petitioner from obstructing the respondent's cultivation of the suit property and from altering the property’s nature—The dispute involved the partition and possession of land under Khasra No. 822, with conflicting revenue reports about possession—The petitioner argued that the lower courts erred by relying on one revenue report and ignoring another—The respondent contended that the findings of the lower courts were well-founded and did not warrant interference—The High Court held that under Article 227, it would not interfere with concurrent findings unless there was a manifest miscarriage of justice or a patent error—The courts below had considered the eviden...
Life Estate receiving maintenance from the suit property—Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14(1)—Life Estate = receiving maintenance from the suit property, scope of—Even on going through the pleadings in the Revenue suit for partition filed by plaintiff Kailash Chand, it is clear that there is not even a whisper in the plaint that Smt. Nandkanwarbai or the plaintiff Kailash Chand himself were ever in possession of the suit property—As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and defendant-Mukat Lal(appellant herein) had consented to give half share of the suit property to the plaintiff Kailash Chand on his demand—This assertion was denied by defendant-Mukat Lal—In this context, when we consider the effect of the earlier civil suit ...
Bihar Consolidation of Uphold-ings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, Sections 10(B), 37—Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession and confirmation of his possession over the suit land which was decreed in his favour by the court of first instance but the decree was set aside in First Appeal and was affirmed by the High Court—when the rights of the plaintiff-appellant have been determined and recognised by the consolidation authorities, the order of the Consolidation Officer to that effect in favour of the plaintiff-appellant could not have been ignored by the Civil Court—Even though there was no necessity on the part of the plaintiff- appellant to have instituted any civil suit for declaration of his rights over the suit land inasmuch as his rights over the same stood determined by the Consolid...
(A) Constitution of India, Article 136—SLP to impugn dismissal of Execution petition due to limitation—Article 182 of the J&K Limitation Act (which provides for 3 years) and Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for 12 years— Section 14 of the Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction—Immediately after passing decree, Execution Application filed before Revenue Court of Tahsildar—When held, no jurisdiction, filed before Judicial Court of Munsiff Civil Judge—Time spent at Revenue Court is exempted—EP filed at Civil Judge Court, held to be, within limitation—Period from 18.12.2000, when the execution application was filed to 29.01.2005, when the prior proceeding was dismissed, has to be excluded while computing ...
A. In a land ownership dispute, the plaintiffs assert title and possession, tracing ownership through transfers, an auction sale, and rent receipts—The State of Bihar claims ownership post-Zamindari abolition, citing the land's classification as "Gairmazarua Malik." The plaintiffs argue estoppel based on mutation and rent receipts—A court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, maintaining the status quo—The court found the plaintiffs presented a prima facie case, balanced convenience, and potential for irreparable loss, upholding the injunction against the State's claim. B. In a land dispute between the State of Bihar and private parties, the plaintiffs rely on transfers, auction sale, and rent receipts to assert title and possession—The State contends the land is Gairmazarua Malik, ...
Suit for possession—Validity of sale deed—High Court reversed the judgment and decree of trial court—Appeal—The High Court, in a property dispute, expressed suspicion over a sale deed due to differences in the vendor's signatures on the agreement and the deed—However, it overlooked the evidence of a witness present during the document registration—The appellants initiated eviction proceedings soon after purchasing the property, issuing notices in 1976—A civil suit followed in 1977, seeking possession restoration and damages for use and occupation from October 26, 1976—The Supreme Court noted the material not considered by the High Court and emphasized that the first appellate court must address all legal and factual issues with conscious application of mind, supported by reasons—Ap...
Specific Relief Act, 1963—Sections 38, 54—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65, Article 6, Article 142—Transfer of Property Act —Section 51—Suit for possession—Co-sharer for possession—Granted a decree for possession—Concerns a dispute over possession a piece—The plaintiff claimed ownership and sought possession, while the defendant argued that they had raised a construction on the land and the suit was barred by acquiescence—The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court overturned the decision—However, the High Court held that the plaintiff's ownership was established, the plea of adverse possession was not raised, and the suit was not barred by limitation—Therefore, the appellate court's decision was set aside, and the trial court...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—S.100, S.109, S.122, S.97(1)—Property dispute—Suit for possession—Filed by respondent—Sub-Judge framed certain issues and return finding in favour of appellant—Judgment upheld by Additional District Judge—Second Appeal—Single Judge framed question of law (not substantial question of law) —Held, that judgments of Court below were result of "complete misreading of evidence"—Appellant was entitled to possession of specific portion sold to him, thereby setting aside concurrent findings of Courts below—Hence present appeal—Determination of—Nothing on record reflects vires of transaction ever having been challenged therefore earlier part, described by nature of it being self-contradictory, stands falsified—DW3 has also ...
Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 54—Registration Act, 1908—Section 17—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 67—Transfer of ownership —Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold—Very object of the mandate for registration of transfer of an immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, is primarily to give certainty to title—When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of the Evidence Act is necessar...
Property Law—Suit for possession—Filed by appellant—Decreed by trial Court—Appeal against order—Filed by respondent—Accepted—On ground that they had failed to prove their title to property—Judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court was upheld by High Court—Review Application was also dismissed—Appellants before Supreme Court—Determination of—Two material documents—Which are in form of admission of respondents themselves regarding identity of property in their possession—First being statement of Counsel for respondents made before trial Court—Second is application filed by respondents before Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector—For correction of khasra Girdwari specifically admitting that they are in possession of khasra No. 4833—There is a...
Title suit—Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101 and 102—Suit for Possession—'S', as an attorney on behalf of 'M'—Filed Title suit—Praying for declaration that 'M' is owner of property known as 'Khosh Mahal'—Will—Genuiness of—Accepted by trial—Finding challenged before High Court—Allowed—Suit was decreed holding that plaintiff had right, title and interest in Schedule 'A' property, as amended and plaintiff was entitled to khas possession of Schedule 'A' property after evicting all defendants—Defendants preferred appeal against decree—Determination of—As per plaint, Schedule 'A' property was given on lease by 'M' to M/s. Hotel Mahal Limited—Plaintiff, however, has not placed any document on r...
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16, Section 20 — suit for possession—agreement to sell ...
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 18 - Suit for possession - Under the Act in question, Section 18 does not talk about the validity of any decree of the civil court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come into force in respect of the premises in question on 11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore, the decree could validly be passed and executed. After the applicability of the Act to the area in question, the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court. However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the civil court. A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of ...
Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21, 265 and 300-A—Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952—Suit for possession—The historical significance of the right to property, although diminished as a fundamental right, still retains its essence as a protector of the rule of law—Article 300-A's resemblance to Articles 21 and 265 underscores its role in upholding the rule of law—Courts must safeguard people's liberties by not condoning unlawful government actions—The Union must return possession of the land to the appellants within three months. ...
Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 48(1) and 30—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Sections 111 and 106— Limitation Act, 1963—Articles 65, 66 and 67—Suit for possession—Limitation—Suit for possession would not be covered by Article 65 since there is a specific article i.e. Article 67 dealing with right of the lessor to claim possession after determination of tenancy - Article 67, addressing the lessor's right to claim possession after the termination of tenancy—The appellants, who were the plaintiffs, sought possession from the defendant, alleging him to be the tenant who hadn't vacated the leased property after the lease had expired. Consequently, this suit fell under Article 67 of the Limitation Act. The suit, filed on March 13, 1981, was well within the 12-year limitat...
Suit for possession—The defendants in a possession suit did not admit the plaintiff's title or the transfer of the property to the plaintiff—They denied both the title of the Managing Officer and the plaintiff—Although they claimed continuous possession, they did not assert hostile possession against the true owner—The evidence showed continuous possession, but this alone did not confer title, especially as the defendants never recognized the plaintiff's ownership—Receipts from 1963 were presented, but possession since then did not mature into title without acknowledgment of ownership—The court found the High Court's ruling, granting adverse possession to the defendants, legally flawed—Consequently, the High Court's judgment was overturned, and the suit was decreed in favor of the ...
Succession Act, 1925—Section 63—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 68—Suit for possession of the suit scheduled properties—Contested a lawsuit filed by the respondents for possession of certain agricultural land—The dispute centered around the ownership of the land following the death of its owner, Jagan Nath—The respondents claimed to be Jagan Nath's granddaughters and thus entitled to inherit the land, while the appellants argued that Jagan Nath had executed a valid will in their favor—The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that they were indeed related to Jagan Nath and that the will was not genuine—The first appellate court, however, reached a different conclusion, leading to a second appeal—The High Court ultimately sided with the respondents, affirming their...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100 and Order 20 Rule 12—Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950—Section 20, 21 and 79—Suit for possession—Court decreed possession in favor of the plaintiff trust—However, the first appellate court rejected this decree—The dispute revolved around the ownership of the property in question—The High Court concluded that the defendants/appellants had admitted that they were in possession of the property as caretakers only, but the Supreme Court found that this admission did not establish the property as belonging to the plaintiff trust—There was no documentary evidence to prove the property's ownership by the trust—The High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeal succeeded. ...
Suit for possession—Contested the sale of a property, claiming the respondents had encroached on it—The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, but the First Appellate Court overturned the decision—However, the High Court reversed the First Appellate Court's judgment, stating that it had not considered important evidence—The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the First Appellate Court's judgment, and dismissed the respondents' suit for possession. ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151—dispute over the ownership of a property in Delhi—The appellant claims ownership of Plot No—27 and adjacent land, asserting that he inherited it from his father—The respondent, however, alleges ownership based on a sale deed dated 15.8.1966 (later amended to 15.9.1966), claiming to have purchased the property from Dharampal—After a thorough examination of various sale deeds, maps, and documents, the court found that the respondent's sale deed was fabricated and inconsistent with the property's boundaries—In contrast, the appellant's claim was supported by valid documentation—Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing him to regain possession of Plot No—27. ...
Suit For Possession—Possession, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring a sale deed null and void and granting possession of the property to the plaintiff—The defendant, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal with the District Judge, Vidisha—Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the person named 'K' who executed the sale deed was illiterate, had poor eyesight, and was unduly influenced by his brother-in-law—Furthermore, the sale deed covered a significant amount of land and a house but was sold for a meager amount of Rs. 4,000—Based on these findings, the lower courts concluded that the sale deed was invalid—The first appellate court upheld the validity of the sale deed concerning the house, but this did not change the outcome regarding the agricult...
A. Suit for Possession—Proof of Interference—In a suit for possession, the plaintiff must establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property and prove that the defendant has interfered with such possession—Mere assertion of possession without legally admissible evidence is insufficient to sustain the claim. B. Compulsory Registration—Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908—By virtue of the amendment inserting Section 17(1A) in the Registration Act, 1908, any agreement relating to immovable property whereby possession is delivered is compulsorily registrable. C. Effect of Non-Registration—Where the plaintiff relies on an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17, such document cannot be admitted in evidence nor relied upon for proving possession or any r...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 151—Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 8—Suit for possession—A revenue record does not constitute a document of title; it only creates a presumption concerning possession—Courts should refrain from granting a decree of permanent injunction in a mandatory form without conclusively determining the issue of title or leaving it unresolved—The court emphasizes the importance of a thorough examination of the question of title before exercising the power to grant a permanent injunction. ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 144—Suit for possession—"Restitution in Possession Suit - Appellant, a Sirdar in cultivatory possession pre-1951, gifted land to DAV College—Restitution sought after possession suit—Second Appellate Court rejects restitution application—Trial Court's status quo maintained due to alleged sale agreement—Despite entitlement to possession, appellant's claim conditioned on pending proceedings—Appeal dismissed, subjecting possession to pending orders—Short Headnote: Restitution denied in possession suit; Sirdar's entitlement subject to pending proceedings; appeal dismissed with conditional possession." ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100—Suit for possession, the Trial Court dismissed the case, citing harassment and the plaintiff's inability to demand accounts of the property due to past enmity. The High Court framed the substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the lower court's decision on the limitation issue under Section 10 of the Limitation Act. However, it failed to address other essential questions of law. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court's ruling on limitation requires reconsideration in light of the other substantial questions of law. The case is remanded to the High Court for framing and addressing these questions, followed by a fresh decision on the appeal. ...
Limitation Act, 1963—Article 65—Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887—Section 59—Suit for possession—An oral gift made by the deceased concerning her life interest in ancestral property, constrained by a local custom prohibiting such alienations—The daughter filed a possession suit, and the cause of action arose upon her mother's death—The Supreme Court affirmed that the 12-year limitation period applies from the date of death, rejecting the contention that the cause of action commenced with the daughter's knowledge—The Court also emphasized the adherence to the High Court's long-standing interpretation of local statutes, underscoring the importance of continuity in legal interpretations over time. ...
Evidence Act, 1872—Section 35—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 20, Rule 9—Suit for possession—Trial court should not have decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction solely based on entries in the Record of Rights (Khasra and Khatian) without proper inquiry into the question of title—Entries in these records, not prepared under a statute, lack inherent evidentiary value on the issue of title, as they primarily reflect possession—While Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act allows raising a presumption of correctness for records of right, it doesn't establish evidentiary proof of title—In cases where plaintiffs claim title, the court must conduct a thorough investigation into the title question rather than relying solely on revenue records for a decree. ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 22 Rule 4(4)—Suit for possession—Plaintiffs failed to apply for the substitution of defendant No. 2 in both the trial court and the first Appellate Court—The contention arises regarding the applicability of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)—This provision, introduced by Act No. 104/76 effective from 1.2.1977, allows the court to exempt the plaintiff from substituting the legal representatives of a defendant who failed to file a written statement or appear and contest the suit—However, as this provision was not in force when defendant No. 2 passed away, and it lacks retrospective effect, the plaintiffs cannot benefit from it—The court emphasizes that under the relevant CPC provisions, it was the plaintiff's responsib...
Contract Act, 1872—Section 72—Appellants pursuant to void documents, a suit for possession simpliciter can be filed within 12 years—The plea that the documents are a nullity can be taken during the course of the suit—Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply, and the limitation to file the suit would be 12 years, even if the relief of a declaration that the documents are nullity is sought along with possession—The suit would be governed by Article 65, not by Article 58—The court emphasized that the plaintiff, in this case, had to execute the sale deed due to an illegal and without jurisdiction order, and the relief for possession could not be denied based on equitable considerations. ...
A. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114—Adverse inference—If a party to a suit does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference may be drawn against him. [Paras 16–17] B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 8, Rule 2—Procedure and Pleadings—In a suit for possession filed on the basis of a sale deed, possession being sought from any one of the defendants, the said defendant may raise all pleas legally available to defeat the plaintiff’s claim. [Paras 20–21] C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100—Concurrent findings of fact—Concurrent findings of fact on question of title based on the sale deed executed and evidenced on record, which properly conveyed title to the plaintiff, cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a second appeal merely because some other conclusion was pos...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 20 Rule 10—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 141—Suit for possession against the original tenant, alleging rent default and subletting—The tenant's defense was that he hadn't sublet but had a business arrangement with the first respondent—The High Court found insufficient evidence to declare the first respondent a tenant but noted his unlawful possession—Although the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, the High Court ordered the parties to pursue remedies under the Rent Control Act—However, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in disregarding its precedent regarding Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act—It reinstated the trial court's decree, affirming that the first respondent was not a tenant—The appellant wa...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 21 Rule 92—Pattam Rasool filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a residential house in Nellore, claiming one-sixth share—A preliminary decree was passed in his favor on January 7, 1977—Later, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for partition, but it was found that the house was not partible, leading to its sale through public auction—The sale was confirmed by the court on August 7, 1984, and a sale certificate was issued on November 9, 1989—The auction-purchaser, Pattam Sardar Khan, filed an application for delivery of possession on November 9, 1989, which was objected to by the appellant, Pattam Khader Khan, on grounds of limitation—The executing court upheld the objection, but the High Court allowed the revision petition of the auction-pur...
Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 4(1)—Suit for possession—Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench, finding no grounds for interference—Sales made after the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are void, and the State is not bound by them—Possession taken by the government extinguishes the original owner's title, with the State acquiring the property free from encumbrances—Adverse possession claims by petitioners were rejected as they failed to assert their rights against the Society post-possession—The Court notes the State's choice of civil court over summary eviction procedures, finding no error in the High Court's decree favoring the Government and the Society—The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly. ...
Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 114 (G)—Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 34—Suit for Possession and Declaration—Can be filed by a person deprived of immovable property or its possession—Under Section 5, a person can claim possession based on title—Section 6 allows a suit for possession without asserting title if filed within six months of dispossession—After six months, recovery can still be sought within 12 years based on possessory title—Courts must establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship to apply Section 3(r) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act—If both parties deny such a relationship, Section 3(r) does not apply—The provision's applicability depends on proving or admitting the existence of a tenancy—If a lease is determined, and the les...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 6 Rule 17—Suit for possession—Supreme Court allows appeal against Allahabad High Court judgment—Plaintiff's suit for possession and mesne profits against defendant—Defendant denied plaintiff's title, claimed ownership, and later sought to amend written statement to assert adverse possession—Supreme Court holds plea of adverse possession not permissible due to inconsistency with defendant's claim of ownership and failure to openly assert adverse possession—Matter remitted to High Court for disposal on merits—Appeal allowed without costs. ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 20, Rule 12—Suit for possession of a non-agricultural plot—The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased owner, alleging trespass by the defendant—The defendant argued possession with the consent of the deceased and invoked Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act—The Trial Court decreed the suit, but a Single Judge and later the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed it—The Supreme Court, noting the absence of a registered lease and the landlord's acknowledgment of the defendant's possession, holds that the defendant was a tenant, not a trespasser—The Court increases the lease amount due to inflation and dismisses the plaintiffs' suit, allowing them to pursue eviction remedies. ...
Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 6—Suit for possession—Ownership of land originally purchased by Nagappa Naicker. Jagadambal, his widow, filed suit C.S. No. 52/1960 claiming possession and title against South India Education Trust (SIET), alleging trespass—The trial court found for Jagadambal, affirming possession until 1954—On appeal, the Division Bench upheld title but disputed possession due to vague evidence—The Supreme Court, noting the trial judge's detailed findings and SIET's inconsistent defenses, allowed the appeal—It emphasized that adverse possession was not established, citing the land's unsuitability for use and the absence of continuous possession—Thus, it set aside the Division Bench's ruling, restoring the trial court's decree for Jagadambal to reclaim a...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 21 Rule 100—Plaintiff, representing the auction purchaser of the property—The plaintiff claimed sole heirship based on a court sale in 1937, disputing the defendants' assertion of non-binding mortgage and adverse possession for over 12 years—The trial court framed issues on limitation under Article 142 of the old Limitation Act, which the appellate courts failed to address conclusively—The Supreme Court remanded the case, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to establish possession within 12 years—The appeal was allowed, setting aside previous judgments and directing the lower court to determine possession based on existing evidence, pivotal for the suit's outcome. ...
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 9 - Suit for possession - Limitation - Suit against trespasser filed after expiry of six months of dis- ...
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 21 Rule 95, Order 21 Rule 97—Limitation Act, 1963—Article 11A—Suit for recovery of possession—Auction-purchaser of a property, sought delivery of possession—Defendants, sons of judgment-debtors, resisted, claiming they held the property in their own right—Court held they were not holding on behalf of the judgment-debtors—Plaintiff filed a suit for possession more than one year after the court order. The dispute centered on whether the suit was barred by Article 11A of the Indian Limitation Act—Court ruled that the suit was not barred because the prior court order was made under Rule 95, not Rule 97 or 99, and Article 11A did not apply. ...