The starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is the date of execution of the sale deed, even if possession was delivered earlier under the intended sale.

GOKAL CHAND MITAL, J.

1. Whether for purposes of first part of Art.97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , physical possession of the property sold would be deemed to have passed on the date of execution of the sale deed even if delivered earlier under the intended sale, is the sole point for consideration before us.

2. Mehar Singh sold 42 Kanals 18 Marlas of agricultural land to Sardara Singh and five others for a consideration of Rs. 42,900/-, by a sale deed dated 1st December, 1975, which was presented for registration on 3rd December, 1975, and was entered in the book of the Registrar on 4th December, 1975. Smt. Dalip Kaur, daughter of the vendor, filed a suit on 2nd December, 1976, to pre-empt the aforesaid sale. The vendees resisted the suit and besides denying that the plaintiff was the daughter of the vendor, pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as possession of the property sold was taken on the day the sale deed was executed. On the contest of the parties various issues were framed, one of them being as follows:-

Whether the suit is barred by time? O.P.D.

The trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 7th May, 1979, found that the plaintiff was the daughter of the vendor and as such had a superior right of pre-emption and that possession was delivered to the vendees in anticipation of the sale and, therefore, the starting point of limitation under Part I of Article 10 of the Indian Limitation Act would be applicable and the limitation would start from the date of actual registration of the sale deed which was entered in the book of the Registrar on 4th December, 1975, and hence the suit filed on 2nd December, 1976, was within limitation. On vendees appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, by judgment and decree dated 8th January, 1980, dismissed the same after affirming the finding of the trial Court about the plaintiff being the daughter of the vendor and decided the point of limitation against the vendees. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that Sardara Singh vendee stated that possession was taken before the execution of the sale deed and, therefore, placing reliance on Bai Chander Mani V/s. Bhagirath, AIR 1961 Punj 296, held that the limitation would start from the date of registration of the sale deed in the book of the Registrar, which took place on 4th December, 1975, and, therefore, the suit brought on 2nd December, 1976, was within limitation. Against the aforesaid, Sardara Singh vendee has come to this Court in second appeal.

3. The second appeal came up for motion hearing before M.R. Sharma, J. on 7th May, 1980, who entertained some doubt about the correctness of Bai Chander Mani s case (AIR 1961 Punj 296) (supra) and admitted the case to D.B. after formulating the following question of law of substantial importance:-

"Whether the possession of part of land taken on the date when the sale deed is executed would be deemed to be taken under the sale for the purpose of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?"

This is how the matter has been placed before us for final decision.

4 The counsel for the appellant wanted to challenge the finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff is the daughter of the vendor. After going through the finding recorded by the Courts below in this behalf we are of the opinion that the same is well-based on the evidence and it has not been shown how the finding is vitiated. Accordingly that finding is affirmed.

5. Coming to the point of limitation, some factual position deserves to be noticed before we proceed to decide the question of law. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the possession was taken on the date of execution of the sale deed. In evidence, Sardara Singh vendee-appellant appeared and stated that out of the land sold possession of 2/3rd Killas was taken when part payment was made and of the remaining land possession was taken before the execution of the sale deed. It has also come in evidence that possession was taken in the morning while t