(1.) THIS is Defendants' Second Appeal against whom suit for possession has been decreed by both the courts below.
(2.) SMT . Pohlan, widow of Gurditta, made a gift of the suit land measuring 46 bighas in favour of Gurbaksh Singh, son of her deceased daughter Mst. Chand Kaur, on 28th January, 1954. At that time, she had the widow's estate in the suit land as she inherited the same from her husband. Later on, the donee Gurbaksh Singh sold the land to Wadhawa Singh, Defendant. Wadhawa Singh further sold it to Jagir Singh, Defendant, which sale was pre -empted by the Defendant -Appellants, Jagir Singh and others. Smt. Pohlan died on 3rd February, 1961. Her three daughters filed the present suit on 24th April, 1968 for possession of their | share on the death of their mother, alleging that Smt. Pohlan was a limited owner of the suit property and, so the gift made in favour of Gurbaksh Singh was not binding on them. It was also pleaded that the parties were governed by custom and, therefore the widow had no right to alienate the suit property and that was not binding on them. The suit was contested by the Defendants -Appellants, inter -alia, on the plea that Smt. Pohlan was absolute owner of the suit property, and, therefore, she had every right to gift the same in favour of her grandson Gurbaksh Singh. It was also pleaded that the property was ancestral qua Gurditta deceased and the nearest reversionary had consented to the gift which means that the alienation made by her could not be challenged now by the Plaintiffs. Plea of limitation was also taken. The trial court found that Smt. Pohlan was the limited owner of the suit property, and, therefore, what had been transferred was the widow's estate and not the absolute ownership. The suit was held to be within limitation under Article 141 of the old Limitation Act having been brought within 12 years from the death of Mst. Pohlan. The trial court also found that the parties were governed by custom as regards the succession and alienation at the time of making the gift in the year 1954. With these findings, the suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. He further allowed the Defendant his share who did not join with the Plaintiffs while filing the suit.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that there is merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the Defendant -Appellants. Admittedly no suit for declaration was filed by any of the reversionary within the time prescribed under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. It also could not be disputed that the daughters had no right to challenge the alienation of their mother under the custom. They were entitled to succeed to the property in case any declaratory decree was passed challenging the said alienation in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1144.