GURDEV KAUR Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Suit No. 2392 of 1996 the Plaintiff is the daughter of late Sardar Kundan Singh who died on 17.8.1981 and in Suit No. 2418 of 1996 the Plaintiff is the daughter of late Sardar Polo Singh who is stated to have died on 4.11.1997. The parties are cousins of each other. The prayer in Suit No.2392/96 is for the passing of a decree declaring the dissolution of the sundry partnership firm, in which Plaintiff's father was a partner, for the rendition of accounts thereof, and for possession of immovable properties in which Plaintiff's father held a share. In Suit No. 2418/96 the prayers are essentially the same and so far as the facts are concerned the difference is that the claim is in respect of the estate of Sardar Polo Singh.

(2.) It appears that the Defendants herein had fired the first salvo in the shape of probate petitions in which they had propounded Wills allegedly executed by late Sardar Kundan Singh and late Sardar Polo Singh in their favour. These probate petitions came to be dismissed by K. Ramamoorthy, J. by a common Judgment dated 6.8.1996. It is the uncontroverted case of the parties that it is the Defendants who were in possession of the immovable properties as well as the assets of the erstwhile partnership in which late Sardar Kundan Singh and late Sardar Polo Singh were partners, to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs

(3.) A Written Statement has been filed in which a preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that the suit is barred by limitation. Two applications under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure have also been filed by the Defendants for the rejection of the plaint on the same ground. By these Orders I propose to decide the question of whether the suits are liable to be dismissed as being barred by time.