IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Karan Singh and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Krishan Singh and Another – Respondents
CR No. 14 of 2013
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Limitation Act - Declaration of Title - Article 119 of Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for declaration that a property purchased in 1954 was joint property and a gift deed executed in 2000 was null and void. The trial court decided the issue of limitation in favor of the respondent, holding that the suit was within the period of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the right to sue accrued to the respondent when they obtained knowledge of the gift deed in 2002, and therefore, the suit was within the period of limitation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was time-barred under Article 119 of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period of limitation for a suit for declaration of title begins when the right to sue accrues to the plaintiff, which in this case was when the respondent obtained knowledge of the gift deed in 2002.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in it.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Court of Second Additional Munsiff, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) whereby the learned trial court has decided the preliminary issue in favour of respondent No. 1.
2. It is stated in the petition that the learned trial court has wrongly decided the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 The main ground urged in the present petition is that the respondent No. 1 could not have filed the suit for declaration, fifty years after the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner No. 1.
3. Mr. Karman Singh Johal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the suit is hopelessly time barred as the sale deed was executed in the year 1954, whereas respondent No. 1 is seeking declaration with regard to property regarding which sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 1 as joint property in the year 2003. He further argued that even if assuming for the sake of arguments, Article 119 of the Limitation Act is applied, still the suit would be time barred. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601.
4. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently argued that the case of the respondent No. 1 before the trial court was that right from the day of execution of the sale deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 i.e. in the year 1954, the property continued to be a joint family property and further it was the respondent No. 1, who raised a construction of house in the year 1986-87, as such, the learned trial court has rightly decided the issue by returning a finding that the cause of action for declaration of title cannot arise until or unless the other side has done some tangible act prejudicial to the plaintiff's right. Mr. Sharma submitted that the suit is within the period of limitation as per the Article 119 of Limitation Act, Svt. 1995.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration that the land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas situated at Nawabad Jammu purchased by virtue of sale deed executed on 11 Asuj 2011 corresponding to the year 1954 was in fact purchased by Late Chain Singh, the father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and as such is a joint property. Further declaration has also been sought that gift deed executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of his son i.e. petitioner No. 2 on 29.02.2000 is null and void. It is stated that the land was in fact purchased by the father of the petitioner No. 1 and respondents by virtue of sale deed executed in the year 1954 though in the name of petitioner No. 1 as the whole of the sale consideration was in fact paid by the father of the petitioner No.1 and respondents, particularly when the petitioner No. 1 was undergoing course of BVSc. at Meerut and passed out in 1959. It is also stated that Shri Chain Singh expired in the year 1973 and in the year 1986-87, respondent No. 1 also raised new construction in the form of one room, one bathroom, one kitchen and veranda on the first floor by raising RCC structure over the existing rooms on the ground floor, whereas the ground floor of the house was constructed by the Late Chain Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 and respondents. It is also averred that on 08.07.2002, respondent No. 1 came to know that the petitioner No. 1 has executed a gift deed dated 29.02.2000 in favour of the petitioner No. 2, but the same is void ab-initio, as the petitioner No. 1 could not have executed the same because the property was joint property and the respondent had one-third share in the
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Legal Representatives
The main legal point established is that the period of limitation for a suit for declaration of title begins when the right to sue accrues to the plaintiff, as per Article 119 of the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit challenging a sale deed must be filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and suppression of material facts ....
A suit filed to declare a sale deed null and void is barred by limitation if not filed within three years from the date of registration, and must disclose a valid cause of action.
The court established that limitation issues can involve mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for declaration must be filed within the period of limitation as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, and failure to do so will result....
A perusal of the observations made indicates that the Court while laying down the above proposition has used the word ‘ordinarily’ and has not laid down that even in a case where the issue of limitat....
(1) Rejection of plaint – When a document referred to in plaint, forms basis of plaint, it should be treated as a part of plaint – Court cannot look into written statement or documents filed by defen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.