AMAR CHAND Vs. DOGAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Amar Chand Plaintiff joints the judgment and decree of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Patiala dismissing his suit for possession of a house sold by his father Jiwan Singh to Dogar Mal Respondent.

(2.) SHREE Lachhman Das, learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the decision of the trial Judge on the only issue decided against the Plaintiff was against the general principles of interpretation of statutes and should, therefore, be set aside. In this connection it may here be mentioned that Jiwan Singh was an Agarwal by caste and used to run a shop at Nabha. Ordinarily therefore he should be presumed to be governe -3 by his personal law. It was alleged that he contracted intimacy with a Muhammad an girl whom he had engaged as a nurse for his son Amar Chand because of the death of his wife soon after the latter's birth and that he turned a Muslim android as such. But that is a matter which need not be gone into in this case because neither under Hindu nor Mohammedan law by which Jiwan Singh might have been governed, the Plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit in its present, form.

(3.) ON the question of limitation the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that Article 144, Limitation Act applied and that the suit brought within 12 years of the death of Jiwan Singh was within time. He further observed that even if the suit fell under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act (Act 1 of 1920) it was within time as the Plaintiff was minor at the time of the alienations and became major within three years of its institution.