SURTO Vs. SHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed in her favour after reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1978 passed by the Sub-Judge IInd Class, Panipat, the defendants have filed the present appeal.

(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Shanti plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that she was the owner and in joint possession of one-half share of the suit property left behind by her maternal grandfather Neki, who died somewhere in the year 1959. According to her, she was the daughter of Smt. Phool Kaur, pre-deceased daughter of Neki. Smt. Phool Kaur died in the year 1934 and was married to Swaran, father of plaintiff Smt. Shanti. Defendant No. 1 Smt. Surto is the wife of Mam Chand (pre-deceased son of Neki) whereas defendant No. 2 Smt. Dhanno is his daughter. Both the defendants got mutated the entire land measuring 121 Bighas 15 Biswas, left behind by Neki in their names to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, contended that the mutation of succession of Neki was sanctioned by mis-representation and fraud and by concealment of facts. The suit was contested by the defendants. They took the plea that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Smt. Phool Kaur. However, the relationship of Smt. Phool Kaur with Neki has not been denied. As the suit was filed in the year 1973, objection was also taken with regard to limitation. Plea of owners by adverse possession was also raised by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, defendant Nos. 3 to 8 claimed themselves to be the bona fide purchasers for consideration of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court :-

(3.) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been controverted by Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the respondent. According to him, the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of knowledge of the fraud having been played by the defendants upon the plaintiff.