MULA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Courts below by a concurrent finding on all the issues dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant wherein a declaration was sought that the sale of 101 kanals 7 Marlas of land as detailed in the heading of the suit in favour of the defendants 2 and 3, was unlawful and void. Consequential relief of recovery of possession was also sought.

(2.) The land of the plaintiff was sold for the recovery of some dues as arrears of land revenue. The land was put to auction on December 31, 1965 and suit was filed on August 26, 1975. The main challenge of the plaintiff- appellant in the suit as also in this Court is that the sale was not-conducted as per the provisions of Section 82 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and thus the same was void. The defence amongst others, taken by defendants 2 and 3 (auction-purchasers) was that the suit is barred by limitation. Courts below came to the conclusion that the sale was not void and that the suit was beyond limitation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has not-been able to point out as to how the suit is within limitation. Section 92 of the Land Revenue Act makes the order of the learned Commissioner confirming the sale as final and thus the date of his order would be the date of cause of action to challenge the sale and suit is required to be filed within one year of this date. Article 99 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly provides a period of one year as limitation from the date of confirmation of sale, to set aside a sale by civil or revenue Court or a sale for arrears of government revenue or for any other demand recoverable as such. As already noticed, auction took place on December 31, 1965 and the sale was confirmed by the learned Commissioner on September 5, 1966 vide order Exhibit D.1, whereas the present suit was filed on August 26, 1975 after a period of over nine years. No exception thus, can be taken to the finding recorded by the Courts below in that behalf. Even if it be assumed that in this case Article 99 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, the suit will still be barred by limitation as the same has been filed beyond a period of three years from the date when right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff. It is not shown on the record that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff within three years of filing of the suit. Article 113 of the Limitation Act provides a period of three years for challenging an order where no period of limitation is provided. Thus, the suit would be barred by limitation even in that situation also.