https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174567 The suit, brought on a plea of possession and dispossession, fell within Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and required the plaintiffs to show a subsisting title within time. The defendants' possession was found to be open, continuous, exclusive and adverse for more than twelve years, so the plaintiffs' claim was barred under Section 3 read with Section 28 of the 1908 Act. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not arrest limitation, because wrongful or illegal possession is not preserved by that doctrine. On that reasoning, lis pendens did not save the suit from the limitation bar. en-us Thu, 16 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 12:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174567 The suit, brought on a plea of possession and dispossession, fell within Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and required the plaintiffs to show a subsisting title within time. The defendants' possession was found to be open, continuous, exclusive and adverse for more than twelve years, so the plaintiffs' claim was barred under Section 3 read with Section 28 of the 1908 Act. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not arrest limitation, because wrongful or illegal possession is not preserved by that doctrine. On that reasoning, lis pendens did not save the suit from the limitation bar. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Aug 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174567