SAROOP SINGH versus BANTO AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 253 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SAROOP SINGH 
v. 
BANTO AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 8-Punjab Limitation (Custom) 
Act, 1920-Entry 2(b) to the Schedule-Widow, on inheriting suit properties 
A 
B 
of her husband, gifted the same to appellant by a gift deed-Civil Court, in C 
the suit filed by reversioners, holding that the gift by the widow would not 
affect reversionary rights-Presuming the death of the widow on ground that 
~he was not heard of for more than 7 years, reversioners.filing a suit for 
possession and permanent injunction for restraining the appellant from 
·alienating the suit properties-Appellant contesting the suit on the ground 
that the gift deed in his favour was valid; and that the suit is barred by D 
limitation-Trial Court allowing the suit-First and second appeals of the 
appellant before appellate court and High Court were dismissed-Correctness 
of-Held, the reversioners rightly claimed title to suit properties by inheritance 
since judgment and decree passed by Civil Court in earlier suit has attained 
finality and thus the limitation under the customary law has no applicability. E 
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 3 and Article 65-Held, since the appellant 
have not raised any plea of adverse possession, the suit for possession by the 
reversioners on the basis of inheritance is not barred by limitation. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 107 and 108-'-Held, the presumption of 
death of the widow not having been heard for 7 years and above is not a F 
ground to presume that the widow died seven years ago prior to the institution 
of the suit. 
A widow, who inherited suit properties on the death of the original 
owner, gifted them to appellant by a gift deed prior to 1956. Reversion'ers G 
filed a suit before a trial court challenging the legality of the gift deed 
contending that the widow had only a limited life interest in the suit 
properties. The Civil Court decreed the suit holding that the gift deed will 
not affect the reversionary rights after the death of the widow. 
253 
H 
A 
B 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Plaintiff-respondents, who are reversioners, filed a suit before trial 
court for possession and permanent injunction for restraining the 
appellant-defendant from alienating the suit properties on the basis of the 
reversionary rights granted by the Civil Court in the earlier suit. The 
respondents filed the suit presuming the death of the widow on the ground 
that she was not heard of for 7 years prior thereto by them and by others. 
The appellant contested the suit contending that the widow was the 
absolute owner of the suit properties and that she made a valid gift in his 
favour through a gift deed. The appellant further pleaded that the suit 
was time-barred. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the 
respondents are the owners of the suit properties on the basis of the 
C declaratory decree of the Civil Court in the earlier suit; that since there 
was no cogent evidence of the date 11f the death of the widow, she was 
presumed to have died for more than 7 years in terms of section 108 of 
the evidence Act, 1872; a11d that since the appellant never pleaded to have 
become owner by way of adverse possession, the suit of the respondents 
for possession on the basis of inheritance is not barred by limitation under 
D Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The first appeal preferred by the 
appellant was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal 
preferred by the appellant affirming the findings of the courts below and 
by relying on Entry 2(b) of the Schedule appended to the Punjab 
Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the date of 
death of the widow cannot by fixed by applying sections 107 and 108 of 
the Evidence Act, 1872; that since the widow gifted the property to him 
before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, she did 
not become the absolute owner under the Act and hence the courts belQw 
F have erred in holding that the suit of the respondents is not barred by 
limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963; and that it was 
for the respondents to prove the date of death of the widow. 
The respondents contended that on the death of the widow, the 
succession reopened in view of the declaratory decree of the Civil Court; 
G and that since the appellant has not set up any plea of adverse possession, 
the suit cannot 

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