JAIDEO SINGH Vs. MUNSHI DHOOM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of two suits brought by Jaideo Singh and Kunj Behari against Dhum Singh and others for partition of a certain house in Bareilly. It is common ground that the two plaintiffs are the grandson and son respectively of one Bahadur Singh, who was the uncle of one Dilsukh Rai. It is also common ground that the house in question was at one time the joint property of Champat Rai and Dilsukh Rai, although it was a question whether Dilsukh Rai represented himself alone or the whole branch of the family to which he belonged. The suit was resisted by members of Dilsukh Rai's branch and others, but one of them Nityanand, the son of Dilsukh Rai, admitted the claim for partition, provided that he was given his father's share in the house, which he said was one half. The trial Court decreed the suit.

(2.) On appeal the District Judge found that although the plaintiff's branch of the family or a single member of that branch had been joint with Champat Rai as owners of the house (see the pedigree in the trial Court's judgment), yet that more than 12 years before the date of suit Champat Rai had ceased to have possession, and consequently the plaintiffs claiming as heirs of Champat Rai were barred by limitation. In this second appeal this finding of the lower appellate Court is impugned on the following grounds: Firstly, when Champat Rai died, his widow Mt. Jamna Kunwar came into possession, and the plaintiffs could not sue as reversioners of Champat Rai during her lifetime; nor could limitation run against them during that lifetime. As regards this plea, the lower appellate Court has found that limitation began to run in the lifetime of Champat Rai, and secondly it would not be interrupted by Champat Rai's death and the right of the widow to possession. This appears to me to be correct. Where the original owner has ceased to be in possession and his widow and his reversioners successively take no steps to recover possession, the reversioners will be barred by limitation. The widow, would represent the estate for the purpose of taking action, and the reversioners cannot set up the fact of her being a widow as saving limitation.

(3.) In this second appeal this finding of the lower appellate Court is impugned on the following grounds: Firstly, when Champat Rai died, his widow Mt. Jamna Kunwar came into possession, and the plaintiffs could not sue as reversioners of Champat Rai during her lifetime; nor could limitation run against them during that lifetime. As regards this plea, the lower appellate Court has found that limitation began to run in the lifetime of Champat Rai, and secondly it would not be interrupted by Champat Rai's death and the right of the widow to possession. This appears to me to be correct. Where the original owner has ceased to be in possession and his widow and his reversioners successively take no steps to recover possession, the reversioners will be barred by limitation. The widow, would represent the estate for the purpose of taking action, and the reversioners cannot set up the fact of her being a widow as saving limitation.