The absence of limitation for possession suits based on title, and the principle that no person can convey a better title than they possess.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. - CM No. 4849-Cof 2019

Prayer in this application is for condoning delay of 10 days in filing the appeal.

Heard.

Allowed as prayed for. Delay of 10 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Disposed of accordingly.

Main case

2. Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for declaration and in alternative for possession filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial court to the effect that plaintiffs are owners of suit property to the extent of 6 kanal and sale deed dated 11.11.1987 in favour of defendants (appellants herein) is valid to the extent of 4 kanal 6 marlas and not 8 kanal and plaintiffs are entitle to joint possession over the suit property to the extent of their share i.e. 6 kanal. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court came to be affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.

3. The respondents-plaintiffs claimed ownership of land measuring 6 kanal on the premise that they purchased land measuring 2 kanal comprising Rect. No. 70 Killas No. 4(7-12) situated in village Bhumbli from Kartar Kaur daughter of Ujjagar Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 6.10.1987. Before executing the said sale deed in favour of respondents, Kartar Kaur had also sold her share from joint khata to various persons. The respondents were also owner of land measuring 4 kanal lehnda out of killa No. 4(7-12). The sale deeds executed by Smt. Kartar Kaur are valid up to the extent of her share in joint khata and sale deed executed by her beyond her share is invalid and mutation of sold property in respect of sale deed dated 6.10.1987 be sanctioned in favour of the respondents. Kartar Kaur sold land measuring 8 kanal to defendants vide sale deed dated 11.11.1987 and revenue authorities in connivance with defendants sanctioned mutation No. 5529 dated 21.1.1988 in favour of the defendants which is illegal, null, void and liable to be set aside.

4. The sole submission made by counsel for the appellants is that the courts below have grossly erred in deciding the question of limitation against the defendants-appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. It is argued that by way of instant suit, the respondents sought to challenge sale deed dated 11.11.1987 in the year 2009, therefore, suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is clearly barred by limitation. It is further argued that even challenge to mutation No. 5529 dated 21.1.1988 sanctioned in favour of the appellants despite knowledge of sanction of mutation immediately after the same, is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court MD Noorul Hoda vs. Bibi Raifunnisa and others (1996) (7) Supreme Court Cases 767 .

5. The first Appellate Court, in para 26 of the judgment has adverted to the question of limitation and has held, reads thus:-

"It has been vehemently argued that suit field by plaintiff is not within limitation. Contention is that mutation was sanctioned in the year 1988 and plaintiffs were to challenge validity of mutation up to 1991 only. This contention raised on behalf of appellants/defendants can not be said to be tenable in any manner. As already held, sale deed in favour of plaintiff dated 6.10.1987 Ex. PC is still in tact and has not been declared null and void. Sale deed is a registered document. It was for the revenue authorities to enter this sale deed in the revenue record to keep the revenue record intact. Defendants, did not come forward to say that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration. It is established on file that Kartar Kaur sold property beyond her share in favour of defendants. She was not competent to convey better title than she herself was having in the joint holding. Plaintiffs have come in the court on the basis of title i.e. on the basis of sale deed dated 6.10.1987 Ex. PD. Mutation in favour of defendants does not confer any title. Th