Both articles 64 and 65 are rules of limitation, the only difference being that in the former the onus lies on the plaintiff to prove his dispossession within 12 years while in the latter it is for the defendant to prove when his possession became adverse.
Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908) is restricted to suits for possession on dispossession or discontinuance of possession. In order to bring a suit within the purview of that article, it must be shown that the suit is in terms as well as in substance based on the allegation of the plaintiff having been in possession and having subsequently lost the possession either by dispossession or by discontinuance. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908) on the other hand is a residuary article applying to suits for possession not otherwise provided for. Suits based on plaintiffs' title in which there is no allegation of prior possession and subsequent dispossession alone can fall within article 65. The question whether the article of limitation applicable to a particular suit is article 64 or article 65 has to be decided by reference to pleadings. The plaintiff cannot invoke article 65 by suppressing material facts.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5864 of 1999
Decided On: 10.08.2004
Ramiah Vs. N. Narayana Reddy (Dead) by Lrs.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Bhan and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Citation: 2004 AIR SCW 4695
