RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. versus KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 25-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 25, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Limited estate-Widow inherited life estate in the property of her 
husband-Gifted part of such properties to collaterals of her husband- C 
Daughter claimed entire property after death of her mother-Trial Court held, 
widow having no right to alienate such properties, oral gift to collaterals 
void-Affirmed by First Appellate Court-Reversed by High Court holding the 
suit time-barred-Correctness of-Held: In view of prevailing custom, provision 
of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act does not apply-The suit/or possession D 
of immovable property filed soon after the death of widow/the ancesstor and 
it would be appropriately governed by the provision of Limitation Act-Hence 
not time barred-Limitation Act, 1968-Artic/e 65-Punjab Limitation (Custom) 
Act, 1920. 
Mother of the original plaintiff in a suit for possession of share in E 
the suit properties, had inherited the life estate in the property of her 
husband and his brother and alienated part of such property in favour of 
collaterals of her husband. Plaintiff filed a suit and it was decreed in his 
favour. The decision was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. However, 
in the second appeal, High Court reversed the same holding the suit time- F 
barred. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: On a proper analysis on facts and the legal position explained 
in * Narottam Chand and Anr. v. Mst. Durg and Ors., having regard to custom 
prevailing then and legislative history and background of the Punjab G 
Limitation (Custom) Act, the suit was not barred by time as the Act did not 
apply. It was the Limitation Act, 1963 that is applicable as held by the Trial 
Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Under these circumstances, 
the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained.1297-H; 298-A, BI 
291 
H 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Raj Narain Pandey and Ors. v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Ors .. (197312 
SCC 38 and Jagdish Lal v. Parma Nanci, JT (200013 SC 580, referred to. 
*Naro/am Chand and Anr. v. Mst. Durga Devi, AIR (1949) East Punjab 
1091, approved. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7122of1997. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.1996 of the Himachal High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 274 of 1989. 
Dinesh Dwivedi, Manoj Rajan Sinha and P.N. Puri, for the Appellants. 
Y asobant Das and Punit Dut Tyagi, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing 
D the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in a second appeal reversing 
the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming the judgment 
and decree of the trial court. 
The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for possession of shares 
in the suit properties. The trial court as well as the first appellate court 
E concurrently held that the original plaintiff Surtu was daughter of Basanti, 
who had inherited the life estate in the property of her husband Sihnu and his 
brother Nainu; that the parties are governed by custom on which a widow 
having life estate in the ancestral property does not have the right of alienation. 
In view of these concurrent findings it was held that the oral gift made by 
Basanti in favour of Ram Ditta and Khazan on 20th February, 1936 in respect 
F of the suit properties was void and not binding on Surtu. Ram Ditta and 
Khazan have been held to be collaterals of Sihnu within fourth degree, who 
would have inherited the suit lands after the death of Basanti, had she died 
before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. Their defence that gift 
was made by way of surrender or in acceleration of succession was rejected 
G by the trial court as well as the first appellate court stating that the gift was 
not of entire holding of Basanti as she had retained one-third property for 
herself and that the gift cannot be held to be surrender or in acceleration of 
succession. The defendants raised objection that the suit of Surtu was barred 
under Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 (for brevity 'the Act'). The trial 
court recorded a finding that the suit filed by Surtu was within time and this 
H finding was affirmed by the learned District Judge in first appeal relying on 
-
RANBIR SINGH v. KART AR SINGH (PATIL, J.] 
293 
Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Narotam Chand a

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