LexJAGAT RAM versus VARINDER PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- -- - JAGAT RAM A v. VAR IND ER PRAKASH MARCH 22, 2006 B [B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65-Suit for possession of immovable property on death of Hindu female-Limitation for-Suit filed after 12 years from the death of the female-Held: Such suit if not filed within 12 years of C the death of the Hindu female, would be barred by limitation-Jn such case possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only from the date when the female dies and not from some other date. The suit land was gifted to the mother of appellant-plaintiff by 'S'. D Suit by widow of 'S' resulted in compromise to the effect that widow of 'S' would enjoy the suit property during her life time and after her death, the same could be inherited by mother of appellant. Thereafter widow of 'S' adopted respondent-defendant and executed a gift deed in his favour. The adoption and gift deed were challenged by filing a suit which was decreed. Widow of 'S' died in 1967. The decree was challenged in Letters E Patent Appeal, which was dismissed in 1981. Mother of appellant filed the present suit in 1982 for recovery of possession of the suit land. It was dismissed as barred by limitation by trial court. The judgment of trial court was upset in first appeal. In second appeal, High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the same was not filed within 12 years F from the date of death of widow of 'S'. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. High Court has rightly held that the suit should have been filed by the plaintiff within 12 years of the death of the Hindu female, and the same having not been filed within 12 years was barred by limitation. Article 65 of the Limitation act, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation for possession of immovable property or any interest based on title where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to possession of immovable G W7 H 208 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 12006] 3 S.C.R. A property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female. Article 65(b) in express terms provides that "the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when female dies". The limitation prescribed is 12 years beginning from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Article itself provides that the B possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies. It cannot be said that limitation does not run from the date on which the Hindu female died and that it would start running from some other date. 12 lO-C-Fl 2. It cannot be said that in view of the pending litigation relating to C the adoption and gift deed executed in favour of the defandant, in the Letters Patent Appeal till 1981, the appellant- plaintiff could not have filed the present suit. In the litigation which was pending before the High Court the plaintiff had not claimed possession of the suit land. High Court has rightly pointed out that even if the plaintiff had sought amendment of the D pleadings in the pending matter and claimed decree for possession, the legal position would have been different. He having not done so, he should have filed the suit for possession of the suit lands within 12 years of the death, which he failed to do. 1210-F-H; 21 l-AI E CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1558/1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1997 of the High Court of H.P. in R.S.A. No. 4 I 0/1991. B. S. Banthia for the Appellant. F L. Nageshwar Rao, Raj Jayant. Rajeev Shanna, K.K. Shanna and Rupesh Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court w..as delivered by B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the G judgment and order dated 3.10.1997 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shim la in regular second appeal no. 410 of 1991. The appellant before us is the plaintiff whose suit for possession was dismissed by the High Court holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The correctness of the judgment is impugned before us. H - -- - -- JAGAT RAM v. VARINDER PRAKASH [B.P. SINGH, J.] 209 The facts not in dispute are as follows: One Sunder, owner of the suit land, died leaving behind his widow Smt. Kirpi and two daughters, namely Smt. Manshan and Smt. Sita Devi. The appellant-plaintiff, namely Jagat Ram, is the son of Smt. Manshan while Varinder Prakash claimed to be son of Smt. Sita
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.