VINOD KUMAR Vs. SURESH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I am going to dispose of three civil revisions (C. R. Nos. 181, 182 and 183 of 1985) wherein identical questions of fact and law are involved.

(2.) The facts briefly stated giving rise to these revisions are that owners of land situate in village Naharpur, Teshil Jagadhari, district Ambala, sold the same to three sets of vendees who are the petitioners in these revisions. The sale deeds were executed on 3rd of January, 1983 and were registered on 10th January, 1983, at Delhi under Section 30(2) of the Registration Act. Normally, under Section 28 off the said Act such sale deeds are to be registered in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property is situate but Section 30(2) authorises the Registrar of the Delihi district to register the sale deeds without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property. The plaintiff-respondent Suresh Pal brought three separate suits for possession on 23rd of August, 1984, to pre-empt these sales. Applications were also filed along with the suits for condonation of delay in the filing of the suits. These applications were allowed by the trial Sub-Judge, Jagadhari, on 12th of September, 1984. The orders passed by the trial Court have been challenged by the vendees of the three sale deeds in these revisions petitions.

(3.) The core question for determination in these cases is whether the trial Sub-Judge had lawfully permitted the filling of the three suits after the expiry of the period of limitation Article 97 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which relates to pre-emption suits, is as follows:( See Table below) Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run. "97. To enforce a right of pre-emption whether the right is founded on law or general usage or on special contract. One year When the purchaser takes under the sale sought to be impeached, physical possession of the whole or part of the property sold, or, where the subject-matter of the sale does not admit of physical possession of the whole or part off the property, when the instrument of sale is registered". In the present case it is not disputed that the latter part of this Article is applicable and the limitation of one year is to be computed from the time when the instruments of sale were registered. In other words, the period of limitation had started running for these suits with effect from 10th of January, 1983, and so the suits had to be filed within one year of that date. The suits having filed on 23rd of August, 1984, were manifestly barred by time. the learned trial Court condoned the delay in the filing of the suits on the ground that the sale deed having been registered at Delhi, the plaintiff came to know, about them in the month of July, 1984 and since the suits had been filed within one year from the knowledge about the sale deeds, there was justification in condoning the delay. This view in my opinion, is erroneous in law Article 97 of the Limitation Act clearly provides that the period of limitation would start from the date when the sale deed is registered and not from the date on which the plaintiff came to know of the registration of the instrument. Hence the delay in filing of such pre-emption suits cannot be condoned simply because the pre-emptor became aware of the sale deeds long time after the registration of the instruments.