https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309631 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. en-us Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:52:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309631 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309631