Suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 irrespective of prayer for declaration.

The plaintiffs (respondents) claimed ownership and Bhumidhari rights over Khasra No. 430 in Village Adhoiwala, Dehradun

In 1996, the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA/Appellant) occupied 0.4000 hectares of this land without formal acquisition or compensation and constructed residential flats

A joint survey by the Tehsildar in 2003 confirmed the illegal occupation

MDDA’s own legal counsel (DGC Revenue) admitted the plaintiffs' ownership and recommended compensation, which MDDA failed to pay

MDDA contended the land was recorded as Abadi and that possession had been transferred to various allottees between 2003–2004

The Trial Court decreed the suit in 2007, declaring the plaintiffs as owners and ordering MDDA to hand over possession and pay mesne profits

The First Appellate Court affirmed this decision in 2021

1. Whether possession of the property could be ordered to be delivered to the respondents when the building was already delivered to various individuals who were not made parties to the litigation (Non-joinder of necessary parties)

2. Whether the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the relief sought was to declare themselves as the owner of the property

Order I Rule 9 of the CPC, which stipulates that no suit shall be defeated by reason of non-joinder of parties if an effective decree can still be passed

The doctrine of lis pendens and the principle from H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar and Alka Shrirang Chavan v. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale, holding that transferees pendente lite or allottees are bound by the result of the litigation even if not impleaded

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (12-year period for possession based on title) rather than Article 58 (3-year period for declaration)

The precedents in State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar and Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood, which establish that if a suit seeks both declaration and possession, the longer limitation period for possession governs the suit

Regarding Issue 1, the court noted that MDDA's application to add the plea of non-joinder was rejected by the First Appellate Court, and since MDDA did not challenge that order, it attained finality

MDDA's witness admitted that MDDA was the recorded possessor in revenue records

The court reasoned that since the allottees derived their interest from MDDA during the dispute, they were bound by the decree against the principal party

Regarding Issue 2, the court rejected MDDA's contention that the 3-year limitation under Article 58 applied. The court analyzed the nature of the suit and determined that recovery of possession was the primary relief based on the plaintiffs' title

Because the MDDA's occupation was unauthorized and the plaintiffs proved their title via the Khatauni (revenue records), the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 was applicable, making the suit timely

The non-impleadment of allottees was not fatal as they are bound by the decree against MDDA

The suit was within the limitation period of 12 years as prescribed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act

MDDA was directed to hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiffs and comply with the order for mesne profits