MOHINDER SINGH Vs. KASHMIRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is there any period prescribed under the law of limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance, is the question of law involved in this appeal?

(2.) One Niranjan Singh died in 1949 leaving behind 309 Kanals 1 Marla of land and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the appellants on 15th February, 1956. Kashmira Singh respondent, claiming himself to be the son of Niranjan Singh from his second wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur, filed a suit for possession of his 1/3rd share measuring 103 Kanals and 1 Marla of land on 12th June, 1969. The suit was contested by the appellants inter alia on the grounds that the respondent was not the son of Niranjan Singh. In the alternative, the appellants claimed absolute title by prescription. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court after recording evidence held that the plaintiff-respondent was the son of Niranjan Singh. The issues of limitation as well as of adverse possession were also decided against the appellants. Consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for. On appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the learned District Judge. Still dissatisfied, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants.

(3.) When the appeal come up for hearing before S. P. Goyal, J., the only question debated was that the suit was barred by limitation and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on a recent judgment of R. N. Mittal, J., in Naginder Singh v. Chanan Singh, 1983 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 432. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge found that the decision in Naginder Singh's case (supra) needed reconsideration. Consequently, the matter was referred to be decided by a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.