Benami purchase bar and adverse possession pleading requirements defeat a title challenge under civil procedure law.

Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a suit challenging title derived from a court-certified purchase on the footing that the purchase was benami for the plaintiff or someone through whom the plaintiff claims, and that protection extends to transferees deriving title through the certified purchaser; the exception for third persons proceeding against property for satisfaction of a claim does not apply to transferees. A plea of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded with the date and commencement of hostile possession clearly stated, and mere long possession or an assertion of absolute title is insufficient. On both grounds, the challenge to title failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit claiming title through a benami purchase was barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the alternative plea of adverse possession was sufficiently pleaded and proved.

Issue (i): Whether the suit claiming title through a benami purchase was barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 66 prohibits a suit against a person claiming title under a court-certified purchase on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or someone through whom the plaintiff claims. The protection extends not only to the certified purchaser but also to those deriving title through him. The attempt to treat the transferee's claim as falling within the exception for third persons seeking to proceed against property for satisfaction of a claim was rejected, because that exception concerns creditors and not transferees.

Conclusion: The suit was barred under Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the alternative plea of adverse possession was sufficiently pleaded and proved.

Analysis: A plea of adverse possession must be specifically raised and must indicate when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation can be identified. The plaint merely stated long possession and an absolute title, but did not allege hostility, the date from which possession became adverse, or any clear dispute as to ownership. Mere long possession was held insufficient to constitute a proper plea of adverse possession.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession was not properly raised or proved and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to title failed both on the statutory bar and on the alternative plea of adverse possession, so the decree dismissing the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit based on a benami purchase is barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against persons claiming through the certified purchaser, and adverse possession must be specifically pleaded with the point of adverse commencement clearly shown.

---