The suit was found to be barred by limitation and the failure to implead necessary parties, leading to its dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC157.

2. While assailing the correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.

3. Their suit for grant of the following relief has been dismissed by both the courts below:-

'17. That it is therefore prayed that a decree of joint possession to the extent of 1/3 share in land as detailed in the head note of the plaint, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs of the suit."

4. Issues which arise for adjudication

4.1 In the considered view of the Court, the following questions arise for consideration:-

(1) Whether the subsequent suit is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC?

(2) Whether the present suit was filed within the prescribed time?

5. Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed.

6. The plaintiffs are as under:-

1. Rukmani Devi w/o Som Nath s/o Sukhdev Singh.

2. Smt. Romesh Kumari d/o Som Nath s/o Sukhdev Singh

3. Pushpa Devi

4. Raksha Devi Ds/o Rukmani Devi w/o Sukhdev Singh all through Jasbir Singh s/o Som Nath their attorney.

5. Jasbir Singh s/o Som Nath, all rs/o village Jadla the & Distt. Nawanshahr.

7. In order to have a better understanding of the relationship between the parties and the dispute involved, it is considered appropriate to draw a pedigree table, which is as follows:-

8. Sh. Rala Ram had three sons, namely, Surjan Singh, Sh. Arjan Singh and Sh. Banta. Sh. Surjan Singh died on 18.04.1956. He left behind a daughter, namely, Smt. Rukmani Devi, who was already married to Sh. Sukhdev Singh. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force with effect from 17.06.1956. Thus, sh. Surjan Singh died before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. At the time of his death, Sh. Banta Ram had already died. The revenue authorities mutated the entire land in favour of Sh. Arjan Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi. Before his death, late Sh. Surjan Singh executed a surrender deed /Tabliqnama/transfer deed in favour of his daughter Smt. Rukmani Devi with respect to land measuring 50 kanals and odd marlas which after the consolidation of land holdings came to 37 kanals and 2 marlas of land. Smt. Kashmiri Devi (widow of Sh. Banta Ram) executed a registered will with respect to her share in the property in favour of Sh. Swaran Singh (son of Sh. Arjan Singh). Smt. Kashmiri Devi died on 07.06.1974 and the property was mutated in favour of Sh. Swaran Singh. Smt. Rukmani Devi is stated to have executed a registered Will in favour of her two sons namely Sh. Som Nath and Sh. Avtar Singh, without giving any details of the property sought to be bequeathed. A previous suit filed on 12.02.1990 by Sh. Som Nath and Sh. Avtar Singh, both the sons of Smt. Rukmani Devi (daughter of Sh. Surjan Singh) for grant of decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of land measuring 37 kanals and 2 marlas, on the strength of the surrender deed dated 01.08.1950, was decreed on 20.08.1996. It was held that the limited life estate given to Smt. Rukmani Devi has enlarged into complete ownership in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On 18.12.2001, the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed. In other words, the two sons of Smt. Rukmani Devi were declared owners in possession of the land measuring 37 kanals and 2 marlas. On 31.07.2003, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. The caption of the suit reads as under:-

'(Suit for possession of joint possession to the extent of 1/3 share