(i) Right in property  - A right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation.    [Para 75]

 

(ii) Transfer of property  - It is a settled principle of law that a person can only transfer to other person a right, title or interest in any tangible property which he is possessed of to transfer it for consideration or otherwise - Whatever interest a person is possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer only that interest to the other person and no other interest, which he himself does not possess in the tangible property - So, once it is proved that on the date of transfer of any tangible property, the seller of the property did not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it, then a buyer of such property would not get any right, title and interest in the property purchased by him for consideration or otherwise -  Such transfer would be an illegal and void transfer - In such eventuality and subject to any terms and conditions if agreed between the parties, a buyer will have a right to claim refund of sale consideration from his seller, which he paid for purchase of the property under the law of contract - The reason is that the contract to purchase has failed and, therefore, the parties have to be restored back to their original positions, which existed at the time of execution of the contract – Contact.

Held,

Appellants neither claim and nor do they have a right to claim any right, title and interest in the suit land in their own rights - Status of the appellants in this litigation are that of the intending purchasers of the suit land from the original holders of the suit land (P)  - If the original holders (P) are able to prove their subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, the appellants would be able to get the relief in the suit because they are claiming through original holders (P) -  But if the original holders (P) are not able to prove their subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, then the appellants would also loose the case – In our considered opinion, the appellants have failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of  the original holders (P) in the suit land through whom they claim to derive interest in the suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, out of which these appeals arise,  appellants, therefore, have no locus to claim any interest in the suit land.             [Para 35 to 43]

On facts:

Original holders (P) had filed two suits in relation to the suit land asserting therein their ownership rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff and other members of SVK but both the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court  in 2004 - These dismissal attained finality regardless of the fact as to on what grounds they suffered dismissal - These dismissals were binding on the original holder (P) - A fortiori, these dismissals are binding on the appellants too because the appellants were claiming through the original holders (P) - Original owners did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land, which they could have or/and were capable to transfer to the appellants whether for consideration or otherwise on the date when they entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land to the appellants on 23.03.2001.

 

(iii) Limitation Act, Section 27, Articles 64 and 65   - Extinguishment of right to property - Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule provide 12 years period for filing a suit to claim possession of any immovable property -  The period of 12 years prescribed in these two articles is required to be counted from “the date of dispossession” (Article 64) and “when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Article 65) - In order to keep such new rights intact and enforceable, as accrued in order of re-grant in 1973 , the original holders (P) were under a legal obligation to have filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession of the suit land and this ought to have been done by them within 12 years from the date of re-grant, i.e., 1973 - They, however, failed to do so within 12 years and when they actually tried to exercise their rights by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years from 1973), by then it was too late to exercise such rights in law - By that time, their rights in the suit land stood extinguished.