PREM CHAND Vs. PANDIT SATYA DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following short pedigree will be helpful in appreciating the dispute.

(2.) ON 17th December, 1934, during the lifetime of Brahma Prasad but after the death of Bhagwati, Jot Prasad made a gift of the house in suit in favour of Srimati Bittan Dei, defendant No. 2. In this document he in defiance of the trust treated the house as his own property and made a gift thereof to the lady. It has been found by the courts below that as a consequence of the gift made in her favour Srimati Bittan Dei entered into possession also as donee of the house in dispute. She continued in possession in this manner until she sold it away to respondent No. 1 on 24th January, 1939. Since that date this respondent as a transferee from Srimati Bittan Dei has been in possession of the house. The alienation in favour of Srimati Bittan Dei was gratuitous but the one by her in favour of respondent No. 1 is admittedly for a valuable consideration. This fact will be relevant when considering the effect of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation At on which the appellants have seriously relied.

(3.) A number of pleas were taken at the instance of the two respondents against the plaintiffs -appellants claim. They did not admit that any wakf was in fact created or came into existence. They also disputed the allegations, which the plaintiffs made, that the property held by Barati Lal was joint family property as also their allegation that Jot Prasad was incompetent to make a transfer, A plea with which this appeal will be directly concerned, also was that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate court has found that the property in suit was the self -acquired property of Barati Lal. It has, however, agreeing with the trial court, further held that the wakf alleged to have been created by Barati Lal was not acted upon. With these findings and holding that the suit was barred by limitation it confirmed the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit.