Court Rules Long-term Possession Perfects Title, Dismisses Defendants' Counter-claim Due to Limitation Bar
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court upheld the plaintiff's title over a disputed piece of land despite the sale deed being void under Mohammedan law. The judgment was delivered by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana on 24th August 2026, in the case involving the legal heirs of Nur Mohammad and Tarubala Saha.
The court's decision came after examining the legality of a registered sale deed executed by an elder brother acting as a de-facto guardian, which was initially deemed void as it was conducted without a court-appointed guardianship. However, the court found that the plaintiff's long-term possession of the land, spanning over 30 years, coupled with the defendants' failure to challenge the transaction within the statutory limitation period, perfected the plaintiff's title.
The case stemmed from a suit filed by the predecessor of the current respondents, Smt. Tarubala Saha, who had purchased 4 bighas, 2 katha, and 10 lecha of land in 1975. The defendants had contested the sale, claiming it was void due to lack of proper guardianship and sought to cancel the deed. However, both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed their counter-claim, ruling it was barred by limitation.
Justice Surana, in his judgment, noted that the doctrine of adverse possession and the limitation period played a crucial role in this case. He emphasized that the defendants' inaction within the prescribed limitation period extinguished their right to challenge the plaintiff's title, which had been established through continuous possession and cultivation of the land.
The court also addressed the applicability of Article 59 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, underscoring that the defendants should have filed their suit to declare the sale deed void within three years of attaining majority or within twelve years of the plaintiff's possession.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that while a void transaction cannot confer title, prolonged possession without challenge can lead to the perfection of title under certain legal circumstances. The decision highlights the importance of timely legal action in property disputes, especially under the unique tenets of Mohammedan law.
Bottom Line:
Under Mohammedan law, a de-facto guardian cannot sell the property of minors without being appointed as a guardian by a court of law. However, possession and inaction by affected parties within the limitation period can lead to perfection of title by the purchaser.
Statutory provision(s): Mohammedan Law, Limitation Act, 1963 (Article 59, Section 27), Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 90), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Section 100)
Nur Mohammad v. Tarubala Saha, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2966455
