BALAGURUSAMI PILLAI Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Second Appeal filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.119 of 1988 dated 31.7.1989 on the file of the District Judge, Salem confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1987 in O.S.No.313 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.) The suit properties belonged to one Varadammal, the second wife of one Kaveri Marudha Pillai. Kaveri Marudha Pillai was the grand son of the said Marudha Pillai through his first wife. Kaveri Ramasamy Pillai was the grand son of Marudha Pillai through his second wife. K.Ramasamy Pillai's son is the plaintiff. K.Marudha Pillai's daughter through his first wife and Varadammal's daughter are defendants 1 and 2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that Varadammal's estate enlarged into a full estate in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, on and from the date of coming into force of the Act, she could deal with the property as a full owner to her alienees, who are defendants 3 and 4. On these and other grounds, the trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation holding that the suit has been filed beyond time.

(2.) AS against this, the present second appeal has been filed and has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) IN (2006) 4 SCC 482 (Jagat Ram vs. Varinder Prakash), the owner of the property left behind a widow and two daughters. He executed during his life time a gift deed in favour of one of his daughters. The suit was filed by the widow. There was a compromise to the effect that the widow would enjoy the suit property as long as she was alive and after that, the property would go to the donee, the daughter. The widow executed an adoption deed in favour of her grand son through another daughter. The suit was filed by the donee/ daughter for a declaration that the adoption was illegal. IN the meantime, the widow died. The daughter filed a suit for recovery of possession, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. This was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, while dismising the appeal filed against the judgment of the High court, rejected the contention that the suit had to be filed within 12 years from the date on which the possession of the defendant became adverse and therefore, it was immaterial as to when the Hindu female died. The Supreme Court held that there is no scope for the argument that limitation does not run from the date on which the Hindu female died and that it would start running from some other date. This decision was heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that limitation would start running from 28.1.1976, the date on which Varadammal died.