Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Ram Saran and another, Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ganga Devi, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 726 of 1968, D/-17-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. P. Goyal and Sobhagmal Jain, Advocates, for Appellants; Mr. G. N. Dixit, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
– see the decision in Ram Saran v. Smt. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685 = Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1971 SC 761 = Radha Rani Bhargava v. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 216
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves Ram Saran and another as plaintiffs, who jointly owned certain property with Chhabili Kuer. After her death, Ganga Devi, the defendant, claimed to be her legal representative and obtained mutation in her name (!) .
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of their sole ownership of the property, without claiming possession of the entire or any part of it (!) .
The fact-finding courts determined that during Chhabili Kuer's lifetime, she possessed a portion of the property, while the plaintiffs possessed the other portion. After her death, Ganga Devi unlawfully took possession of the properties that were in Chhabili Kuer's possession. The courts also found that Ganga Devi was not an heir of Chhabili Kuer, but the plaintiffs were her heirs (!) .
The courts below held that the suit was governed by a specific limitation period under relevant property law, and since the suit was not filed within three years of the cause of action, it was barred by limitation. The High Court concurred and additionally held that the suit was barred under a specific provision of the law relating to specific relief (!) (!) .
The appellate court agreed that the suit was barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act because the plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership without seeking possession of the properties Ganga Devi was in possession of. As a result, the suit was found to be not maintainable (!) .
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decision was upheld that the suit was barred by law and thus not maintainable (!) .
The citation of the case is for reference purposes and does not impact the legal principles discussed (!) .
Please let me know if you need any further analysis or assistance.
Judgment
HEGDE, J. :- This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave. Ram Saran and Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are brothers. They jointly owned suit property with Chhabili Kuer widow of Lalita Prasad. After the death of Chhabili Kuer on February 8, 1971, Ganga Devi the defendant in the suit come forward as the legal representative of Chhabili Kure and got the mutation effected in her name in the place of the deceased Chhabili Kuer. In 1958, the plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they are the sole owners of the suit properties. They did not claim possession either of the entire or even any portion of the suit properties.
2. The fact finding Courts, namely the trial Court as well as the appellate Courts have come to the conclusion that during the lifetime of Chhabili, she was in possession of a portion of the suit properties and the other portion remained in possession of the plaintiffs. The further finding reached by those Courts is that after the death of Chhabili Kuer, Ganga Devi took unlawful possession of the properties which were in possession of Chhabili Kuer. They also found that Ganga Devi was not the heir of Chhabili but on the other hand the plaintiffs were her heirs.
3. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the present suit falls within the scope of Section 209 of the U. P. Act 1 of 1951, and the suit not having been brought within the period of three years as provided in that Act, the suit is barred by limitation. The High Court agreed with that conclusion, in addition it held that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. We are in agreement with the High Court that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. As found by the fact-finding Courts, Ganga Devi is in possession of some of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have not sought possession of those properties. They merely claimed a declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties. Hence the suit is not maintainable. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the other contention that the suit is barred by limitation.
5. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1972 SC 2685
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
