SAWARAN KAUR Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for joint possession was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) One Harnam Singh son of Nihal Singh was the owner of the suit land. He executed a gift deed in respect of the said land in favour of his grandsons Baldev Singh and Tara Singh, etc., on 3-11-1959. Kishan Singh, son of Harnam Singh challenged the said gift on the usual grounds under custom. Though the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, the same was decreed in appeal by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on April 24, 1963, to the effect that the land measuring 24 kanals was ancestral qua Kishan Singh and Harnam Singh and that the gift to that extent was cancelled, but it was allowed to stand with respect to the rest of the land as the same was found to be non-ancestral. The donees came up in second appeal to this Court which was dismissed in limine on 9-8-1963. Harnam Singh, donor, died on July 24, 1961. The present suit was filed by Swaran Kaur, daughter of the said Harnam Kaur (Singh?) on 6-12-1966, on the basis of the decree passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on April 24, 1963. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by time as it was filed after more than three years of the date of death of Harnam Singh, donor, as well as from the date of the decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated April 24, 1963. At one stage, there was the dispute as to whether the plaintiff being a female had the locus standi to claim the possession of the suit property after the death of her father Harnam Singh. However, it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal, AIR 1969 SC 1144 and Teg Singh v. Charan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1699, wherein it was held that a declaratory decree obtained by the reversionary heir in an action to set aside the alienation of ancestral property enured in favour of all persons who ultimately took the estate on the death of the alienor and that the Punjab Customs (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 12 of 1973, did not render such a decree a nullity. Consequently, the case was remanded and one of the issues therein was whether the suit was within time. The trial Court found the suit to be within time and the same was decreed accordingly. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by time as it was filed beyond three years from the date of the declaratory decree which was obtained on 9-8-1963, as well as from the date of death of Harnam Singh on July 24, 1961. The limitation in this case was held to be governed by Art.2(b), Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, she has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) At the time of the motion hearing, it was submitted that Art.2 in the Schedule to the Punjab Act No. 1 of 1920 did not apply to the plaintiff as she was claiming the suit property on the basis of inheritance.