Appeal success: Plaintiff wins suit based on title, not void sale deed. Adverse possession plea rejected.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings against the plaintiff and decreeing the suit in the plaintiff's favor. The court clarified the correct application of the Limitation Act, ruling that the plaintiff's claim for possession was upheld based on title, not the void sale deed, and rejecting the defendant's plea of adverse possession. The plaintiff was awarded the relief sought, emphasizing the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act for the suit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Suit challenging judgment and decree of lower courts.
2. Ownership dispute over land in village Tibba.
3. Allegation of false sale deed by defendant.
4. Plaintiff's claim for possession and cancellation of sale deed.
5. Defendant's defense of being a bonafide purchaser.
6. Plea of limitation raised by defendant.
7. Applicability of Article 59 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act.
8. Appeal against dismissal based on limitation and res judicata.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The plaintiff filed a second appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit by lower courts, claiming ownership to 1/3rd share in disputed land in village Tibba. Allegations of a false sale deed by the defendant were central to the case.

Issue 2:
The plaintiff sought possession and cancellation of the sale deed, alleging that the defendant, in connivance with others, fabricated the deed. The plaintiff's claim was based on being the rightful owner and not having sold the land.

Issue 3:
The defendant contended that the land was purchased for consideration and raised a plea of being a bonafide purchaser. The defendant also raised the defense of adverse possession and challenged the suit's limitation period.

Issue 4:
The trial court found the sale deed void due to impersonation, but the suit was dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court held that the suit should have been filed within three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of the deed.

Issue 5:
The plaintiff's appeal was also dismissed on the grounds of limitation. However, the plaintiff argued that the suit was based on title, not just the sale deed, and thus, the 12-year limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act should apply.

Issue 6:
The court analyzed the application of Article 59 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act. It was concluded that since the sale deed was void ab initio, the suit for possession was not dependent on its cancellation, and the 12-year limitation period was applicable.

Issue 7:
The court emphasized that the relief of possession was based on the plaintiff's title, not the sale deed, which was deemed void. The plaintiff's claim for possession was upheld, and the defendant's plea of adverse possession was rejected.

Issue 8:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings against the plaintiff on various issues and decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The court clarified the correct application of the Limitation Act and awarded the plaintiff the relief sought.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, findings, and conclusions of the judgment, addressing each issue comprehensively and preserving the legal nuances of the case.

---