SHANKER LAL Vs. USHA SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants herein was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The suit property was held originally by Sumiya Bai - mother of the plaintiffs. She had sold the suit property by registered sale deed Ex.D-2 on 31-3-1975 in favour of defendant No.1 and the name of defendant No.1 was also recorded in the revenue record by the order of the Tahsildar which was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 1-5-1979. Thereafter, the plaintiffs also preferred an application before the Debts Relief Court claiming that the sale deed Ex.D-2 is not an outright sale, it was a mortgage executed for security of loan. Ultimately, that application was rejected and the Additional Collector by its order dated 16-3-1979 declared that Ex.D-2 is a sale transaction, it is not executed for security of loan and it is not mortgage. Thereafter, by order dated 20-7-2001, the name of defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue records by the order of the Tahsildar, duly affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 26-3-2002 and by the Additional Collector by order dated 26-2-2007, which was sought to be challenged by the plaintiffs by instituting suit on 31-7-2001 claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that the sale deed executed by their mother in favour of defendant No.1 was executed by their mother without prior permission of the court which is hit by Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and that is not binding on them and defendant No.1 has got his name mutated in the revenue records. It was also pleaded that the order dated 1-5- 1979 reverting the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue record was never challenged by defendant No.1. Simultaneously, it was also pleaded that since the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land prior to 1975, they have also perfected their title by way of adverse possession and claimed decree as aforesaid.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendant No.1 filed her written statement stating inter alia that she purchased the suit land from Sumiya Bai by Ex.D-2 on 31-3-1975 and came in possession and her name was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1977. The suit land was sold by Sumiya Bai for legal necessity of her family and in spite of that, the plaintiffs got their application rejected by the Debts Relief Court on 7-6-1978, which was affirmed by the Additional Collector on 16-3-1979 (Ex.D-3), it was not challenged by the plaintiffs directly after obtaining copy of the same, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.