DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. versus GURDEV SINGH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 05-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
GURDEV SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.J 
B 
Limitation Ac~ 1963 : Sections 3, 6, 7 and ~Schedule-Article 65. 
Limitation-Suit for possession-Minor--Suit filed within 12 years--
Held barred by Limitation-Suit should have been filed within three years of C 
cessation of disability i.e. attaining majority. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136. 
Concumnt findings as to fabrication of will for gaining wrongful pos-
session of suit property-Interference with by Supreme Court-Held not jus-
D 
lifted. 
The respondent, a minor at the time of death of his father, attained 
majority on April 17, 1977. On November 4, 1982 he filed a suit for 
possession of the suit properties within 12 years under Article 65 of the 
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. In appeal to this Court, it was E 
contended for the appellant that the suit ought to have been filed within 
three years from the date of cessation of respondent's disability and since 
it was filed beyond three years it was barred by limitation. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. The suit of the respondent is barred by limitation. Though 
in a given case, the defendant may have perfected ti~e by adverse posses· 
sion during minority of the plaintiff by remaining in continuous and 
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the immovable property as-
serting his own exclusive right, title or interest in immovable property to G 
the knowledge of the plaintiff, on cessation of the disability, even though 
the period of limitation prescribed in third Column of the Schedule might 
have expired by emux of time,- section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 longates 
the right and enlarges the limitation and entitles the minor, insane or idiot 
to institute the suit or make the applic!ltion within the same period 
prescribed in the Third Coluinn of the Schedule to the Act, after the H 
95 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
disability to which the minor, the insane or the idiot has been subjecte~ 
to, ceased. [97-B; F; G] 
· 2. Section 8 of the Limitation Act is ~ special exception ~o Section 6 
or 7 and the period of limitation though barred under section 3 is available 
to persons under disability specified in section 6 or 7 and the right to lay 
B 
the suit or application after disability ceases under section 6 or 7 is 
regulated by the limitation prescribed by section 8. In other words, in each 
case the litigant is entitled to a fresh starting period of limitation from the 
date of cessation of disability subject to the condition that in no case the 
period extended by this process under section 6 or 7 shall exceed three 
C years from the date of cessation of the disability. [99-A·B·C] 
3. All the courts have concurrently found as a fact that the appellant 
had fradulently brought a fabricated will to gain wrongful possession of 
the suit property and was in enjoyment thereof. After the judgment of the 
High Court, the respondent came into possession of the soi~ property in 
D execution of the decree. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference under 
Article 136 of the Constitution. [99-D-E] 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6034 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.94 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in R.S.A. No. 31of1987, 
' 
Ashim Vachar, S.Prasad, Ms. Bharati Anand and Mobil Mathur for 
the Appellants. 
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madho Moolchandani for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. . 
The appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated March 2, 
1994 in R.S.A. No. 31/87 of Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondent 
filed the suit for possession on November 4, 1982. Admittedly, he was a 
minor at the time of the death of his father. It is also an admitted fact that 
he attained majority on April 17, 1977. He filed the suit for possession of 
H the plaint schedule proportion within 12 years under Article 65 of the 
DARSHAN SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH 
97 
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, Act 21 of 1963 (for short 'the Act'). A 
It is contended for the appellant that the suit ought to have been filed 
within three years from the date of cessation of respondent's disability but 
it was filed beyond three years and that, therefore, the suit is barred by 
limitation. A conjoint reading of ss. 6(1) and 8 of the Act shows that where 
a person is entitled to institute a suit, the limitation begins 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.