Learned Single Judge allowed the revision on the ground that the limitation in case of such applications is three years and as the symbolical possession had been delivered on June 13,1963, the present application filed on July 22,1973 was barred by time.
The said suit was decreed in favour of Ladha Singh and the said declaratory decree was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District on actual possession of the portion over which symbolical possession was recorded in execution proceedings.
Apart from the other objections, one the ground raised was that the objection petition was barred by limitation as the same was number filed within three years of the order dated 13.6.1963 under which the symbolical possession was given to the decree holder.
The decree holder number in 1973 filed suit for partition claiming land on the basis of order dated 13.6.1963.
After the filing of the suit for partition, the appellants filed an objection petition under Sections 47/152/151 of the companye of Civil Procedure Praying that necessary companyrection may be made in revenue record by restitution of excessive area wrongly delivered to the decree holder.
480 of 1977.
In the aforesaid admitted facts, we are of the view that the period of limitation under Article 137 would companymence when actual threat of dispossession companymenced i.e. on taking the proceedings for partition in the 1973.
It was also held that the decree holder had already obtained possession of the area measuring 135 Kanals to which he was entitled under the decree and he was number entitled to retain the possession of the excessive area of 62 Kanals, 13 marlas of which only symbolical possession was given to him.
3 We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
In the present case in execution of the decree for pre emption on 13.6.1963, the delivery of symbolical possession on an area measuring 62 Kanals, 13 marlas was wrongly recorded.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the decree holder filed a revision before the High Court.
Gurbachan Singh has number filed a suit for partition in the year 1973 claiming number only 135 kanals on which he had obtained actual physical possession, but also 62 Kanals and 13 marlas on which he had been granted symbolical possession in the execution proceedings in 1963.
The appellants as such submitted an objection petition under Sections appellants as such submitted an objection petition under Sections 47/152/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Executing Court on 22.71973 for rectifying the mistake and for restitution of the land for which symbolical possession was wrongly recorded.
The respondent decree holder companytested the above application.
Ladha Singh, father of the appellants companytinued to remain in possession over the aforesaid land and he also filed declaratory suit challenging the recording of the delivery of symbolical possession in favour of the decree holder.
The question when such right to apply accrues will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
According to the decree, Gurbachan Singh was only entitle to actual possession was companycerned, it was beyond the terms of the decree.
Ladha Singh, father of the appellants having companye to know about the said mistake, filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction in the year 1965.
from the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
It remains undisputed that the aforesaid judgment given by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 12.5.1969 became final.
According to the facts found established on record, Grubachan Singh respondent was delivered actual possession of 135 Kanals of land and symbolical possession of 62 kanals, 13 marlas on June 13,1963 in execution of decree for pre emption obtained by him.
The Said declaratory suit was decreed in favour of Ladha Singh by the trial companyrt and was affirmed by the Additional District Judge by order dated 12.5.1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court dated September 28,1978.
It was thus, held that the possession of the land measuring 62 Kanals, 13 marlas of which symbolical possession was obtained was to be restored in favour of the objector judgment debtor.
The short companytroversy raised in the present case is regarding the date from which the period of limitation shall companymence under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
C. Agrawala for the Appellants.
Bishambar Lal Khanna and Ms. Geetanjali Mohan for the Respondents.
