VINOD KUMAR Vs. SURESH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I am going to dispose of three civil revisions (CR. 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. Tehsil 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 of January, 1983, at Delhi under Section 30(2) of the Registration Act. Normally, under Section 28 of 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 Delhi 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 filing 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 :- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run