Recovery of possession under a special statute cannot be defeated by limitation, adverse possession, or an unproved auction sale.

A mortgagee could not resist delivery of possession on the basis of an unproved alleged auction sale, as valid transfer was not established by reliable sale records and the right to retain possession ended once the debt was discharged. An application to recover possession under the special statute was not barred by limitation, because the Act formed a complete code and no limitation period was prescribed for such recovery; adverse possession also failed for want of proof of hostile title to the true owner's knowledge. Mesne profits were upheld as a consequential incident of delivery of possession and could be granted in execution. The appeal therefore failed and delivery of possession with mesne profits was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mortgagee could resist delivery of possession on the footing that an alleged auction sale by the Collector had made him the owner, (ii) whether the application for recovery of possession was barred by limitation or defeated by adverse possession, and (iii) whether mesne profits could be awarded in execution of the award.

Issue (i): whether the mortgagee could resist delivery of possession on the footing that an alleged auction sale by the Collector had made him the owner.

Analysis: The award under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act created a charge on the property and, upon discharge of the debt, the right to retain possession as mortgagee ended. The evidence of a valid auction sale was not proved by the best material, namely the sale notification, proceedings, and sale certificate. In the absence of reliable proof of a lawful sale and transfer, the appellants could not claim ownership merely on the basis of disputed payments and continued possession.

Conclusion: The plea of ownership based on the alleged auction sale failed and the respondents were entitled to recover possession.

Issue (ii): whether the application for recovery of possession was barred by limitation or defeated by adverse possession.

Analysis: The Act is a complete code for determination and recovery of the debt and possession, while the Civil Procedure Code applies only to the mode of execution. The special scheme did not prescribe any limitation for an application to recover possession under the Act, and therefore section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply. Adverse possession also required proof of hostile title to the knowledge of the true owner, which was lacking. The reasoning that limitation applicable to money awards under the Act would automatically extend to possession awards was rejected.

Conclusion: The execution for recovery of possession was not barred by limitation, and the defence of adverse possession failed.

Issue (iii): whether mesne profits could be awarded in execution of the award.

Analysis: After discharge of the debt, the respondents became entitled to possession and to compensation for unlawful retention. Mesne profits were treated as a consequential and integral incident of the order for delivery of possession. The civil court's finding on the annual income from the land supported the award, and the executing court was held competent to grant such relief.

Conclusion: The award of mesne profits was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the order directing delivery of possession together with mesne profits was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates a complete code for recovery of possession and omits any limitation period for such recovery, the general law of limitation and the doctrine of adverse possession cannot be invoked to defeat execution, and mesne profits may be granted as an incident of delivery of possession.

---