2018 Supreme(SC) 263

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
MOHINDER SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs. - APPELLANTS
Versus
PARAMJIT SINGH & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10222 OF 2017
Decided On : 28-03-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Expression “the declaratory decree is obtained” in Article 2(b) of the Schedule intrinsically includes the date on which a formal decree is drawn or prepared and not merely the date on which a declaratory judgment is passed.

Headnote:(a) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Section 8 r/w Article 2, Schedule – Suit for possession of alienated ancestral property – Limitation – Three years from a declaratory decree that alienation of ancestral immovable property or appointment of an heir is not binding on the party. (Para 13)

       (b) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Article 2(b), Schedule – Expression “the declaratory decree is obtained” – Prefixed by “is” and suffixed by “whichever is later” – Intrinsically includes the date on which a formal decree is drawn or prepared – Not merely the date on which a declaratory judgment is passed – Instantly decree drawn on 19th August, 1972 and suit for possession filed on 11th June, 1974 – Held within limitation. (Para 17, 20)

       (1975) 1 SCC 725; (1999) 8 SCC 315 – Relied upon

       (c) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Article 2(b), Schedule r/w Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 – Expanse of Section 14 of the Act not limited to mere jurisdictional issue but also other cause of a like nature – Exclusion of time spent in pursuing other civil proceedings in good faith – Instantly, excluding the period from 14th January, 1971 till 2nd February, 1974 being the time spent by the plaintiff in pursuing other civil proceedings in good faith, held, there is no delay and the suit was filed within time. (Para 22, 23)

       (2004) 3 SCC 458; (1975) 4 SCC 22 – Relied upon

       (2008) 7 SCC 169 – Referred

       (d) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Section 5 – Suits referred in First schedule – To be governed by provisions of sections 4-25, and section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 – Held, section 14 of Act 1963 is attracted to fact situation of present case. (Para 26)

       Facts of the case:

       The singular question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is: whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has no impact in view of the provisions contained in Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920.

       A gift deed was executed by one Ujjagar Singh in respect of the lands, to one Rura Singh son of Surendra Singh (predecessor of the respondents) vide Gift Deed dated 6th March, 1963. The said land was ancestral land in the hands of Ujjagar Singh wherein Mohinder Singh (predecessor of the appellants) and others were coparceners.

       The original appellant Mohinder Singh filed a suit for declaration that the gift deed was void. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was arrived at between Rura Singh (predecessor of the respondents) and Mohinder Singh (predecessor of the appellants). On the basis of the said arrangement, the Court disposed of the suit on 20th August, 1963.

       Mohinder Singh then took out execution petition No.430 of 1964 on 23rd December, 1964. The said execution petition was dismissed being premature.

       The said Ujjagar Singh died on 14th January, 1971, where after Mohinder Singh took out second execution petition on 18th February, 1971. He also took out an application for summoning the original file with the decree sheet. This application was filed on 23rd August, 1971 before the Executing Court. It then transpired that the decree was prepared and the decree sheet was drawn on 19th August, 1972. However, the execution petition instituted by Mohinder Singh came to be dismissed for default on 2nd February, 1973. On the same day, Mohinder Singh took out third execution petition which was dismissed on 2nd February, 1974 on the ground that the same was not maintainable.

       Mohinder Singh filed a fresh suit on 11th June, 1974, in the Court of Civil Judge.

       The Civil Judge negatived the objection taken by the respondents regarding the suit being barred by limitation.

       The respondents (defendants) filed a first appeal before the District Court which was dismissed.

       The respondents then preferred a second appeal before the High Court which has been allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 14 of Limitation Act applies to the case.

       Result: Appeal allowed.