The main legal point established is that a suit for possession based on prior possession can be brought within 12 years from the date of dispossession, and the plaintiff is entitled to protect her possession till partition.

V.K.JHANJI, J.

1. The dispute in this second appeal relates to land measuring 3 Bighas 15 Biswas comprised in Rectangle No. 23, Killa No. 6/2 situated in village Khamano Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana as per Jamabandi for the year 1972-73. Amar Kaur, plaintiff obtained a decree in suit decided on 7-1-1957 against her sons Dalip Singh and Malkiat Singh for recovery of Rs. 200.00 for six months as maintenance and for being entitled to remain in possession of 11 Bighas 7 Biswas of land comprised in Rectangle No. 22, Killa No. 10/2, 11, 20/1 out of rectangle No. 23, Killa No. 6/2 as per Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 in lieu of maintenance till her death. Since the amount of maintenance was not paid, Amar Kaur got the land of her sons Dalip Singh and Malkiat Singh including land comprised in Killa No. 6/2, auctioned in execution of decree and with the permission of the Court, purchased it herself on 24-5-1960. Amar Kaur became the absolute owner of the land which she purchased in auction in execution of the decree of her maintenance. Before Amar Kaur purchased the land in open auction, one of her sons namely, Malkiat Singh sold 15 Bighas 10 Biswas of land which was his 1/2 share out of total land of 31 Bighas 1 Biswa, to Hardev Singh, Sewa Singh and Hardev Kaur (now respondents) vide sale deed dated 12-6-1958 registered on 29-4-1959. However, no specific Khasra No. was sold vide the aforesaid sale deed.

2. Respondents i.e. vendees from Malkiat Singh, filed a suit for declaration that the sale in favour of Amar Kaur in open auction is not binding on them. This matter finally came up in High Court and C. G. Suri, J. (as his Lordship then was), vide judgment dated 113-1973 in Regular Second Appeal No. 1089 of 1963 held :

"Shri T. S. Mangat then argued that the decree was in respect of a Khasra number which had not been mentioned in the sale deed, executed by Malkiat Singh in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. This objection does not form the subject matter of any ground of appeal taken by Shri Mangat. Even other- wise, the decree is for joint possession and the decree-holder can only get symbolical possession during execution. The exact khasra numbers to be given to the vendee can be determined in a suit for partition of the joint holding."

3. Amar Kaur apprehending forcible dispossession from the land measuring 11 Bighas 7 Biswas which she had purchased in the open auction and was in possession of the same, filed a suit for injunction on 20-9-1973 seeking a restraint order against her forcible dispossession from the land included in Killa No. 6/2.

4. During the pendency of the suit, Amar Kaur was forcibly dispossessed from the land measuring 11 Bighas 7 Biswas comprised in Killa No. 6/2 and, therefore, learned Sub Judge trying that suit, decreed the suit in respect of the rest of the land except Killa No. 6/2 as the learned sub Judge was of the view that no injunction can be granted in respect of this land as she had already been dispossessed. However, it was observed by the learned Sub Judge that Amar Kaur could file a separate suit for possession in respect of Killa No. 6/2. This is how the present suit out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed for possession of land measuring 3 Bighas 15 Biswas by Amar Kaur.

5. Plaintiff in her suit claimed that she was owner-in-possession of the land in suit and she had been forcibly dispossessed about 2 years back from the date of institution of the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents raising various objections and the trial Court finally dismissed the suit holding that though Amar Kaur is proved to be co-owner of the property in dispute but she having claimed possession only on the basis of her dispossession, the suit could be filed within six months from her dispossession as provided under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Amar Kaur being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, filed appeal before the first appellate Court and her appeal w