Prasanna and Others vs. Mudegowda (D) By LRs.
Background
Decades of litigation between two families over land near Mandya, Karnataka: the appellants' father (Srinivas Shetty) had sold the property to Mudegowda, but earlier suits by the appellants for declaration of title and injunction failed, with courts holding Mudegowda had valid title though not necessarily possession. Mudegowda then filed a suit for possession, which after multiple rounds (including a jurisdiction-based transfer between courts) succeeded before the trial court and High Court, but the appellants challenged it before the Supreme Court arguing the suit was time-barred under the 12-year limitation period for possession suits.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that since Mudegowda's title had already been conclusively established in the earlier 1987 suit, the fresh possession suit filed within six months of that finding was not barred by limitation. It also held that once title is proved, the burden shifts to the person in possession to prove adverse possession, and the appellants had failed to establish either their possession or an adverse possession claim. The Court found no error in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, confirming the deceased respondent's right to possession.
Lesson Learnt
Once a court has finally decided who holds valid title to a property, a related follow-up suit to recover possession filed promptly after that finding will not be treated as time-barred, and the burden falls on the person resisting possession to prove their own adverse possession claim.