Void transfer and title-based possession claim fall under Article 65, with no equitable bar to recovery.

A suit for possession based on title was held to fall under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not Article 58, because the pre-emption order and the sale deed executed under it were jurisdictionally void and could be ignored. A separate declaration was unnecessary in such a title suit, and the claim was within limitation. Equitable objections based on execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration also failed, as the transfer arose from an illegal and unauthorized order affecting land within the ceiling limit, so no equitable bar prevented restoration of possession. The plaintiff's right to recover possession on title was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for possession was governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether equitable considerations arising from the execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration disentitled the plaintiff from recovering possession.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for possession was governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The order exercising pre-emption under Section 27(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to the extent it affected land within the ceiling limit, was without jurisdiction in view of the earlier declaration of invalidity. A document or order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be ignored in a suit for possession based on title. In such a case, a separate declaration is not necessary for the plaintiff to seek possession, and the period of limitation is governed by the rule applicable to possession based on title, namely Article 65.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and was within time.

Issue (ii): Whether equitable considerations arising from the execution of the sale deed and receipt of consideration disentitled the plaintiff from recovering possession.

Analysis: The sale deed was executed pursuant to an illegal and jurisdictionally void order affecting property within the ceiling limit. The plaintiff did not voluntarily part with the property in a normal transaction, and the defendants retained possession for the same period during which the plaintiff retained the consideration. On these facts, there was no equitable ground to deny restoration of possession.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not barred by equity from obtaining possession.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the decree for possession failed, and the plaintiff's right to recover possession on the basis of title was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A void and jurisdictionally unauthorized order and the conveyance executed pursuant to it can be ignored in a suit for possession based on title, which is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rather than Article 58.

---