BAL JIT Vs. CHAND KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, is the next presumptive reversioner to the estate of one Harbans, who died leaving behind him a widow, Mt. Lado. On 4th September 1918, Mt. Lado executed a simple mortgage of the property in suit in favour of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh obtained a decree on the basis of the mortgage, in Suit No. 1147 of 1930. Plaintiff-respondent, Chand Kiran, and his brothers then instituted a suit, being Suit No. 409 of 1931, in the Court of the Munsif of Meerut for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930 was not binding upon the reversioners of Harbans, after the death of Mt. Lado. The suit was dismissed on 8th January 1932 on the only ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 125, Limitation Act. Mt. Lado then executed a sale deed on 16th October 1948, to pay up the decree in Suit No. 1147 of 1930.

(2.) The present suit was brought for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 16th October 1943, will not bind the plaintiff after the death of Mt. Lado. It was dismissed by the Court of first instance on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court on the question of limitation and has remanded the suit for determination of the remaining issues. Aggrieved by this decision of the lower appellate Court the defendants have come up in appeal to this Court and it is contended on their behalf that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) It is the common case of the parties that Article 125, Limitation Act, applies. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the alienation really took place in the year 1918 and that the alienation in the year 1943 was a mere consequence of the earlier alienation. It is, therefore, contended that the suit, which was brought more than 12 years after the alienation of 1918, was barred by limitation. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied upon four cases.