MOHINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1027
MOHINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRs.
v.
PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10222 of 2017)
MARCH 28, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Art.2(b) of the
Schedule and ss.5 and 8 – Limitation of suits relating to alienation
of ancestral immovable property – Gift Deed by one ‘U’ in favour
of predecessor of the respondents in respect of the land in question
– Suit filed by original appellant for declaration that the gift deed
was void – Suit disposed of in terms of the compromise wherein the
original appellant was to be given the land in question after the
death of ‘U’ – Execution petitions filed by original appellant,
dismissed – Eventually, original appellant filed fresh suit for
possession – Plea of respondents that the suit was barred by
limitation – Contested by appellants relying on the second part of
Art.2(b) of the 1920 Act as also s.14 of the 1963 Act – Held: Second
part of Art.2(b) postulates that the time from which limitation period
would commence to file a suit for possession would be the date on
which the “declaratory decree is obtained”– In execution
proceedings, mere passing of the judgment by Court is not enough
but a decree has to be drawn on the basis of declaratory judgment
which is then put into execution – In the present case, even though
the declaratory judgment was pronounced in the previous suit on
20th August,1963, on the basis of compromise entered, the
declaration could be given effect to only after the death of ‘U’–
Decree being a conditional decree was enforceable only thereafter
– Decree sheet drawn on 19th August, 1972 and the suit for
possession filed thereafter on 11th June, 1974, was thus, within the
prescribed period of limitation in terms of Art.2(b) of the Schedule
of 1920 Act –  Further, s.14 of the 1963 Act is also attracted in the
present case and the tests specified in s.14 are satisfied for showing
indulgence to the plaintiff to exclude the period during which the
plaintiff pursued execution proceedings for reckoning the period
of limitation for filing the suit for possession – Trial Court and
  [2018] 7 S.C.R. 1027
 1027
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
appellate court right in decreeing the suit in favour of the original
appellant by rejecting the objection regarding the suit being barred
by limitation – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.14, 29(2) and Art.136 –
Limitation Act, 1908 – ss.4 to 25.
Words & Phrases – ‘Obtained’ – Meaning of, in the context
of Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 –  Art.2(b) of the Schedule.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920  was
enacted to amend and consolidate the law governing the limitation
of suits relating to alienations of ancestral immovable property
and appointments of heirs by persons who follow custom in the
area to which the Act would apply. Section 8 of the 1920 Act
postulates that when any person obtains a decree declaring that
an alienation of ancestral immovable property or appointment of
an heir is not binding on him according to custom, the decree
shall enure for the benefit of all persons entitled to impeach the
alienation or the appointment of an heir. For such a declaratory
suit, the limitation is provided in the schedule. Article 2 of the
Schedule also envisages that the period of limitation for a suit for
possession of ancestral immovable property which has been
alienated, on the ground that alienation is not binding on the
plaintiff according to custom, inter alia, within three years from
the date the declaratory decree is obtained. In the present case,
the declaratory decree was passed on 20th August, 1963 on the
basis of the compromise between the original appellant and the
predecessor of the respondents. However, that being a conditional
decree, the right to sue for possession would not have accrued
until the death of ‘U’ which happened only on 14th January, 1971.
[Paras 13, 14] [1040-D-F; 1041-F, G]
1.2  The expression “declaratory decree is obtained” would
take within its fold the event of drawing of or preparation of the
decree. Notably, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
had accepted the stand taken by the plaintiff that the compromise
decree was prepared or drawn on 19th August, 1972. Even
the High Court had not reversed that finding. [Para 15]
[1042-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
1.3 The expression “obtain”, as understood in common
parlance and defined in Concise Oxford Englis

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