Back
1956 Supreme(P&H) 86
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw, J.
Lal Singh, Nihal Singh
Versus
Punjab Singh Anup Singh
Second Appeal No. 186 of 1951,189 of 1951,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 19, 1956
Important Points
Subject
CUSTOMARY LAW - SUCCESSION
Act Referred
SOLDIERS LITIGATION ACT : S.11
Headnote
CUSTOMARY LAW - ADOPTION - SUCCESSION - COMPROMISE DECREE - BINDING EFFECT ON REVERSIONERS - LIMITATION ACT, 1908, SECTION 11 - INDIAN SOLDIERS (LITIGATION) ACT, 1925, SECTION 11 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Lal Singh, the adopted son of Nihal Singh, inherited Nihal Singh's land and, after Bhagwan Singh's death without a son, also inherited Bhagwan Singh's land. Ishar Singh and other plaintiffs, claiming to be reversioners of Bhagwan Singh and Nihal Singh, filed suits for possession of a share in the land, claiming an extension of limitation under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, Section 11, due to their military service. Lal Singh contested the suits, claiming that the compromise decree in a previous suit between Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh was binding on the plaintiffs and that he was entitled to inherit Bhagwan Singh's land as Nihal Singh's adopted son.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit filed by Punjab Singh and others was barred by time, as the extension of limitation under Section 11 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, could not be claimed by impleading an ex-soldier as a proforma defendant. The court also held that the compromise decree in the previous suit between Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh was binding on the plaintiffs, as any suit brought by a reversioner to challenge the appointment of an heir is brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the reversionary body as a whole, and remoter reversioners are bound by the decision in such a suit even when it is based on compromise.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit filed by Punjab Singh and others was barred by time? 2. Whether the compromise decree in the previous suit between Bhagwan Singh and Lal Singh was binding on the plaintiffs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 11 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, as providing a personal extension of limitation to soldiers and their legal representatives, and not to parties who implead ex-soldiers as proforma defendants. 2. The court held that a compromise decree in a suit brought by a reversioner to challenge the appointment of an heir is binding on all reversioners, whether or not they were parties to the suit, as such suits are brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the reversionary body as a whole.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suits with costs throughout and also dismissed the respondents' cross objections.
Falshaw, J.
1. These two appeals (Regular Second Appeal No. 186 of 1951 and Regular Second Appeal No. 189 of 1951) have arisen in the following circumstances. First of all it is necessary to set out the following pedigree-table to show the relationship between the parties:-
-
BAGHEL SINGH
___________________________________________|__________________________________________
| | | | |
Buta Singh Jassa Sing Fateh Singh Anup Singh Maluk Singh
(Died issueless) | |
Khushal Singh Ancestors of the plaintiffs in both the suits. |
| ________________________________________|______
Sher Singh | | |
(Defendant No.2) Nihal Singh Bhagwan Singh Dhian Singh
| (Died on 18-12-1026) (Died on 28-9-1933) (Died issueless)
Lal Singh
(Defendant No.1)
The present appellant Lal Singh is said to have been adopted, by Nihal Singh and his wife Mst. Ratno while still a young child, the adoption being embodied in a registered deed dated the 15th of May 1923 though the actual adoption was said to have taken place some years before. The original deed was said to have been lost but proof by secondary evidence was allowed.
Nihal Singh died on the 18th of December 1926 and his wife died a few days later on the 29th of December 1926. Although Mst. Ratno had died so soon after her husband Nihal Singhs death, his land was at first mutated in her name in February 1927, but Lal Singh got the land mutated in his name as the adopted son of Nihal Singh in May 1927.
Before the end of that year Bhagwan Singh, the brother of Nihal Singh, brought a suit challenging the alleged adoption of Lal Singh and claiming Nihal Singhs estate. This suit, however, was compromised on the 8th of May 1928, a decree being passed on the basis of the statement of Bhagwan Singh In which he admitted Lal Singh to be the adopted son of Nihal Singh on the condition that Bhagwan Singh was to be allowed to remain in possession of Nihal Singhs land during his lifetime, and also that in the event of any son being born to Bhagwan Singh the said son should be the owner of one half share of Nihal Singhs land. On the other hand if Bhagwan Singh died without leaving any son, Lal Singh was to be recognized as the owner of both Nihal Singhs and Bhagwan Singhs land.
2. Bhagwan Singh died without leaving any son on the 28th of September 1933 and about a year later his land was mutated in the name of Lal Singh, who thus became the owner of the whole of the land formerly held by Nihal Singh and Bhagwan Singh.
3. The first of the two suits from which these appeals have arisen, i. e., Civil Suit No. 305 of 1946, was instituted by Ishar Singh etc., on the 28th of November 1946 claiming possession of 19/54 share of the land standing in the name of Lal Singh, whose natural father Sher Singh, is apparently still alive and was Impleaded as defendant No. 2, six other reversioners of Bhagwan Singh and Nihal Singh also being impleaded as pro forma defendants.
It was conceded in the plaint that the suit was brought about one year and two months beyond the period of 12 years following Bhagwan Singhs death, but each of the plaintiffs claimed an extension of limitation on the ground that he had been serving in the Army under war time conditions for periods which in each of their cases considerably exceeded one year and two months. They thus claimed the benefit of Section 11 of the Indian Soliders (Litigation) Act IV of 1925. It was claimed that the land was ancestral qua themselves
