RALLI Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this appeal is property which belonged to Nanda deceased. Nanda married twice. By his first wife Partapi, he had a daughter Ralli who is the plaintiff-appellant in this case. By his second wife Santi, he had a daughter Gur-nam Kaur who is a defendant-respondent. Nanda died in 1924 and soon after his death his second widow Santi remarried. Nanda's property devolved upon his widow Santi and then on his unmarried daughter Gurnam Kaur as Santi by her remarriage lost her right in her deceased husband's property. The mutation in favour of Gurnam Kaur was sanctioned on 1-10-1926. Ralli was at that time alive but she was a married woman. She had apparently married before Nanda's death. She laid no claim to the property and did not take any steps to get any share of her deceased father's inheritance. On the other hand the collaterals of Nanda entered into a contest with Gurnam Kaur. The proceedings before the revenue officers lasted a considerable time but eventually Gurnam Kaur's rights were preferred to those of Nanda's collaterals. The result was that on 1-10-1926 Gurnam Kaur was entered as the sole heir of Nanda. Gurnam Kaur married in 1938 or thereabouts. Then in 1944 Ralli brought the present suit for possession of half share of the property left by Nanda. In the plaint Ralli alleged in paragraph 3: "About six years ago Gurnam Kaur defendant No. 1 married. The plaintiff was already married. so now after the marriage of defendant No. 1 the plaintiff's rights of inheritance have been born and now after the marriage of defendant No. 1 the plaintiff is entitled to claim a half share of the property of Nanda her deceased father, in land and houses as his daughter. The plaintiff by the custom of Hindus is an heir of the property of Nanda deceased to the extent of one half share." In another part of the plaint she alleged that Gurnam Kaur was entitled to hold her father's property only till her (Gurnam Kaur's) marriage.

(2.) The plaintiff impleaded a number of other persons who had acquired interests in the land but the suit was contested in the main by Gurnam Kaur who pleaded that when inheritance opened, she, being the unmarried daughter of Nanda, was his sole heir. She denied that Ralli was a daughter of Nanda and further pleaded that the suit was barred by time, as she had been in adverse possession of the land for more than 12 years and as the plaintiff had not brought the suit within 12 years of the date when her right to sue accrued. There was also a plea to the effect that the suit could not be brought in the present form with regard to the land under mortgage. The trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) It has been found by the Courts below that Ralli is the daughter of Nanda. Issues 2 and 3 were found in favour of defendants 2 to 4 and 10,' and the only matter we are now concerned with is the question of limitation. The lower appellate Court has found that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time.