RANBIR SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in a second appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for possession of shares in the suit properties. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court concurrently held that the original plaintiff-Surtu was daughter of Basanti, who had inherited the life estate in the property of her husband Sihnu and his brother Nainu; that the parties are governed by custom on which a widow having life estate in the ancestral property does not have the right of alienation. In view of these concurrent findings it was held that the oral gift made by Basanti in favour of Ram Ditta and Khazan on 20th February, 1936 in respect of the suit properties was void and not binding on Surtu. Ram Ditta and Khazan have been held to be collaterals of Sihnu within fourth degree, who would have inherited the suit lands after the death of Basanti, had she died before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. Their defence that gift was made by way of surrender or in acceleration of succession was rejected by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court stating that the gift was not of entire holding of Basanti as she had retained one-third property for herself and that the gift cannot be held to be surrender or in acceleration of succession. The defendants raised objection that the suit of Surtu was barred under Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 (for brevity the Act). The trial Court recorded a finding that the suit filed by Surtu was within time and this finding was affirmed by the learned District Judge in first appeal relying on Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Narotam Chand and another vs. Mst. Durga Devi (AIR 1949 East Punjab 109), that the suit of the plaintiff was governed by general law of limitation under Art. 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (old Act of 1908) wherein the period of limitation prescribed is 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property from the date of cause of action that has arisen to Surtu on the death of Basanti on 2-9-1968 and not by the Act.

(3.) The High Court in the second appeal in the impugned judgment has recorded, thus :-