PITRA KUERI Vs. UJAGIR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's special appeal. It is unnecessary to give the facts in detail because only a single point has been argued before us. It would be sufficient if we state that the property in dispute originally belonged to one Amrit Rai, who died in 1923. On his death his Step-mother Smt. Balli Kuar took possession of his property. Certain collaterals of Amrit Rai then filed a suit to recover possession over the property from Smt. Balli Kuar. The suit ended in a compromise. Smt. Balli Kuar was allowed to retain a portion of the property belonging to Amrit Rat but the rest of the property was given to the collaterals. The property which is now in dispute appears to be the portion of the property which was by that compromise given to the collaterals. Smt. Balli Kuar died in 1935. Smt. Pabitra Kuar alias Pitra Kuar, the present appellant then filed a suit against the collaterals to recover possession of the property in suit. This suit was filed on the 4th of November 1944. within 12 years of the death of Smt. Balli Kuar but more than 12 years after the date of the compromise arrived at between her and the collaterals of Amrit Rai. The plaintiff in this suit claimed to be the sister of Amrit Rai and contended that she was not bound by the compromise and was entitled to get the property after the death of Smt. Balli Kuar, she having become the heir of Amrit Rai under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of 1929. The Suit was contested on various grounds including limitation and want of right to sue. The contention put forward on behalf of the defendant was that Smt. Balli Kuar was not the heir at law of Amrit Rai and if she entered into possession of the property after his death she did so without any right and was really a trespasser. The plaintiff could claim to be an heir of Amrit Rai as his sister only it Smt. Balli Kuar can be held to have succeeded him as a limited owner with a life estate. If she was not an heir but a trespasser the plaintiff could not claim the property at all as a sister was not considered to be an heir in 1923 when Amrit Rai died. In any case the plaintiff should have claimed the property left by him within twelve years of his death and as she did not do so and waited till the death of Smt. Balli Kuar her suit for possession of the property filed in 1944 was clearly barred by the twelve years rule of limitation.

(2.) The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal the learned civil Judge decreed the suit. A second appeal was then filed in this Court which was heard by Mr. Justice Mushtaq Ahmad. He allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the trial Court. He, however, granted leave to appeal under the Letters Patent and the present appeal has been filed in pursuance of that permission.

(3.) The only contention that has been pressed before us on behalf of the appellant is that the learned single Judge was not correct in his view that Smt. Balli Kuar was not the heir of Amrit Rai because she was his step-mother Under the Hindu Law a step-mother is as much an heir as a mother. Smt. Balli Kuar, therefore, succeeded to the estate of Amrit Rai as a limited owner and the succession opened only after her death. The plaintiff had become an heir under Hindu Law by that time. Her suit having been filed within twelve years of her death was well within time and should not have been dismissed. The contention appears to us to be without force.