ROMEL SINGH Vs. CHINTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Courts below have concurrently held that sale made by Gittu, original Defendant in respect of his land measuring 22 Kannals 3 marlas, situated in village Garli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, as described in part-A of the heading of the plaint, in favour of original Respondents-Defendants S/Shri Man Singh. Hukam Singh, Sant Ram, Bhagat Ram and Hans Raj, was without legal necessity and not binding on the Appellant-Plaintiff and on the right of other reversionary (S/Shri Man Singh and Hukam Singh, original Respondents/Defendants have died timing the pendency of this appeal and their legal representatives have been brought on record). But the suit was dismissed and decree of declaration was refused on the ground that on the death of Gittu, which occurred on 17-1-1974 during the pendency of the suit, right to possession, had accrued to the nearest reversioner and the suit for mere declaration was forbidden under proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence, by way of present Regular Second Appeal, the Appellant-Plaintiff has challenged the decree and judgment dated 19th May, 1979 passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the decree and judgment dated 26-7-1976 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala was affirmed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record' Shri D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Plaintiff has urged that both the Courts below have not examined the case from another angle that without decree for declaration the suit for possession had become time barred and could not be filed by near reversioner. In support of his argument, he has drawn my attention to Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 (hereinafter called the Act of 1920) Under Section 5 of the Act of 1920, suit of the description specified in the schedule annexed to the Act of 1920, is liable to be dismissed if it is filed after the period of limitation prescribed in the said schedule, even if limitation has not been set up as defence. This Section is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the first schedule of the said Act. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1920, provision has been made for suits for which the period prescribed is shorter than that prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act or the Punjab Limitation Act Section 7 of the Act of 1920 is subject to Section 6 of the Act and its Sub-section (a) provides as under:

(3.) Under this provision for bringing within limitation, the suit for possession of ancestral immovable property on the ground that alienation of such property is not binding on the Plaintiff according to custom, suit for declaration is required to be filed within the period prescribed in the schedule annexed to the Act i.e. 6 years from the date of registration of sale deed In other words, Section 7(a) of the Act of 1920 puts bar of limitation for filing suit for possession if the suit for declaration is not instituted within the period prescribed by the schedule i.e. 6 years from the date of registered sale deed. Further, under Section 8 of the Act of 1920, it is provided that the benefit of declaratory decree that alienation of ancestral immovable property is not binding according to custom enures for the benefit of all persons entitled to impeach the alienation.