News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 15
Bilaspur, 05.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that a civil suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over ancestral land was barred by limitation, restoring the trial court’s dismissal and overturning a contrary finding of the first appellate court. The judgment clarifies that limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act begins when possession becomes adverse, not from the conclusion of criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.
The case arose from a long-running land dispute in Ambikapur, Surguja district. The original plaintiff claimed ownership over ancestral land and alleged that the defendant had forcibly occupied the property in the early 1980s. To resolve the dispute, the plaintiff had sought demarcation from the Tahsildar. A demarcation report dated July 11, 1984, confirmed that although the land stood recorded in the plaintiff’s name, it was in the possession of the defendant, who refused to vacate.
Despite becoming aware of the adverse possession in 1984, the plaintiff did not immediately approach the civil court for recovery of possession. Instead, proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated, which ultimately ended in dismissal on June 18, 1997. A civil suit for declaration of title and possession was filed later, in September 1997.
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding it to be barred by limitation and also defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the first appellate court reversed this finding, reasoning that limitation should be computed from the date of dismissal of the Section 145 proceedings and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Allowing the second appeal, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu held that this approach was legally unsustainable. The Court observed that under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the twelve-year limitation period for a suit for possession based on title begins when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff. In the present case, that point clearly arose on July 11, 1984, when demarcation confirmed the defendant’s possession and the defendant refused to hand over the land.
The Court further clarified that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are preventive in nature and concerned only with maintaining public order. They do not decide title or extend limitation for civil remedies. The period spent in such criminal proceedings cannot be excluded for computing limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Since the suit was filed more than twelve years after the demarcation, the High Court concluded that it was hopelessly time-barred. Having answered the limitation issue against the plaintiff, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the question of non-joinder of parties. The appeal was allowed, the appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court’s judgment dismissing the suit was restored.
Case Reference : SA No. 127 of 2005, Kariman (Died) Through LR: Balram Rajwade vs Jainath (Died) Through LRs: Bhagwati Rajwade and Another
Counsels : For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Resp No.1 (A) to 1 (C) : Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State/Resp No.2 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer