AJYDH RAJ vs MOTI

The Supreme Court held that in a suit concerning immovable property under a Special Act, if an adverse order must be set aside for relief, Article 100 of the Limitation Act applies; otherwise, Article 65 governs if the order is a nullity. The Court found that the plaintiff was the rightful owner and the defendant lacked tenant rights, rendering the order under Section 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, without jurisdiction. Consequently, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the High Court's dismissal was overturned.