DARSHAN SINGH Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTHING except the question of limitation has been argued by the parties in this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, Jullundur, dated October 8, 1960, whereby the decree of the trial Court was reversed and the suit of Darshan Singh appellant for possession of the land and house in dispute was dismissed as barred by time. The real contest is between the son and the father (Darshan Singh appellant and Arjan Singh respondent No. 1 respectively), the Union of India having been impleaded only as a pro forma party.

(2.) THE following pedigree table will show the relationship between the parties:-HIRA SINGH | _______________________________________________ | | Nihal Singh Mahtab Singh | | Jiwan Singh Adopted son (testator) Arjun Singh | son of Jiwan Arjun Singh Singh (respondent (respondent No. 5) No. 1 ). | Darshan Singh (Appellant) Jiwan Singh owned some self-acquired property in village Maksudpur, district Jullundur, as well as some land and a house in Chak No. 180/ E. B. in tahsil Vihari district Multan. Jiwan Singh's son Arjan Singh respondent No. 1 had been adopted away by Jiwan Singh's paternal uncle Mehtab Singh. On January 11, 1945, Jiwan Singh executed a registered will in favour of Darshan Singh appellant whereby he bequeathed his entire movable and immovable property to his grandson Darshan Singh. Jiwan Singh died in February, 1945. There is some evidence of the plaintiff-appellant having come into possession of the tahsil Vihari land after the death of Jiwan Singh. The fact, however, remains that Arjan Singh respondent got Vihari land mutated in his name. After the partition of the country the parties migrated to their village Maksudpur in district Jullundur. As the name of Arjan Singh respondent occurred in the revenue records as the owner of the Vihari Land pursuant to the mutation in his favour, the agricultural land and the house in dispute situate in village Sondh, Tahsil Nawanshahr, were allotted by the Government in favour of the contesting respondent. Consequent on the said allotment possession of the disputed land and house in village Sondh was also given by the Government and obtained by Arjan Singh respondent some time after August 15, 1947.

(3.) ON May 2, 1959, Darshan Singh filed the present suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, claiming a decree for possession of the land and house in dispute against Arjan Singh. Union of India was impleaded as a pro forma defendant to the suit on the ground that the allotment of acquired evacuee land and house in village Sondh had been made in favour of the contesting respondent by the Central Government. The plaintiff claimed that he had become absolute owner of the Vihari property on the death of Jiwan Singh in pursuance of his will, and that though Arjan Singh had represented to the plaintiff that the allotments had been obtained in the name of the plaintiff he had fraudulently got the pucca sanads in his own favour. As the contesting defendant had obtained possession of the disputed land and house in village Sondh in lieu of Vihari property which belonged absolutely to the plaintiff, it was claimed that Arjan Singh had no right to retain possession of the same. The suit was contested by both the defendants. The Union of India pleaded in its written statement that the property in dispute had been allotted to Arjan Singh defendant as he was shown to be the owner of the Vihari land in the revenue records received from Pakistan and as the plaintiff was not shown to be the owner of the Pakistan property in revenue records. The contesting defendant raised various pleas in his written statement, some of which relating to Court-fees etc. , were disposed of by a preliminary order and to which the present dispute does not extend. The contesting defendant denied the execution of any valid will as well as the alleged fraud in obtaining the allotment of the disputed property in his name and further pleaded that the suit was barred by time and the plaintiff was estopned by his conduct from making his claim in suit. The plaintiff had further claimed that as the defendant himself had produced the will before the Revenue Authorities in Pakistan he was estopped from objecting to the validity of the will by his act and conduct. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues on merites:-