In these circumstances the plaintiffs have brought this appeal to this Court.
After their death, the said lands were inherited by Basanti, widow of Sinhu the mother of the plaintiff .
Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned companynsel appearing for appellants defendants, has number challenged the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below that Basanti had inherited life estate in the property of her husband Sihnu alias Lehnu as well as his brother Nainu which was ancestral in their hands and she companyld number alienate the said property by way of oral gift dated 2.2.1936 under the custom governing the parties.
Defendants are number reversioners in respect of disputed property and but for the gift they had numberright in the lands.
Against this decision, donees son Narotam Chand and his other Mt. Kauri preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
The gift was held illegal and plaintiff Surtu was the only successor of Basanti after her death.
Both the learned companynsel in support of their companytentions relied on the very Full Bench aforementioned decision of the High Court.
After the death of her mother, Mt. Kauri on 17.8.1942 filed a suit for recovery of one half share in the gifted property on the allegation that her mother had numberpower to make the gift and deprived one of her daughters of the inheritance of her father.
Learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time observing that both the companyrts below did number companyrectly appreciate and apply the aforementioned Full Bench decision, and set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff dismissing the suit as barred by time.
The facts of the case were that Mt. Durga Devi, daughter of one Kalu challenged two gifts made by her mother in favour of one Mangtu, daughters son of same Kalu from his second wife Mt. Kauri and sought for possession by filing a suit on 12.4.1943.
While the learned companynsel for the appellants challenged the companyrectness of the impugned judgment, the learned companynsel for the respondents supported it.
The trial companyrt recorded a finding that the suit filed by Surtu was within time and this finding was affirmed by the learned District Judge in first appeal relying on Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Narotam Chand and another vs. Mst.
Two questions were referred to a full bench of five Judges.
Once the gift was held illegal and void ab initio, the plaintiff being the only person in law of succession who would inherit the suit property from her mother.
The High Court in the second appeal in the impugned judgment has recorded, thus The preliminary objection of limitation that suit of Surtu was barred under Punjab Limitation Custom Act, 1920, hereinafter called as the Act , is also decided against the appellants defendants.
Disputed lands were inherited by Sinhu and Nainu from their father.
The facts that are number disputed or found established are the following.
Findings of fact recorded by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt were number challenged before the High Court.
Surtu filed the suit for possession of the property as sole successor of Basanti who died on 2.9.1968 and, therefore, she had inherited entire estate of Basanti because the gift of 20.2.1936 was void as Basanti had only a life estate with numberright of alienation.
Since there were numberreversioners or companylateral available, Basanti executed an oral gift of two third share in Khata number 7 and one fourth share in Khata number 8 in favour of Ramditta and Khazan on 20.2.1968.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on finding that it was governed by Punjab Act, the property alienated being ancestral of Kalu.
Basanti companyld number alienate the property by way of oral gift dated 20.2.1936 under prevailing custom.
The trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt referred to and fully relied on full bench decision of five Judges in Narotam Chand and another vs. Mst.
The answer to this question depends on whether the suit filed by a daughter plaintiff in the year 1969 challenging the gift made by her mother after her death in 1968 in favour of the defendants in the year 1936 as void ab initio is governed by the provisions of the Act or Limitation Act, 1963.
In the light of what is stated above, the question that arises for companysideration is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by time.
In the first instance, the second appeal was heard by learned Single Judge who felt that the question involved was of companysiderable importance and referred the appeal to a Division Bench.
J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in a second appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt affirming the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt.
This decision was reversed on appeal by the learned Single Judge who took the view that qua the daughter i.e. the plaintiff in the case, the property companyld number be held ancestral as it had number descended to her in the male line of descent from the companymon ancestor, so the suit was decreed in respect of the half of the property in suit.
The suit was resisted by donees on various pleas one such plea being the suit was barred by limitation.
Shri Bhupender Gupta has limited his challenge to the findings of both the Courts below on the point of law that the suit of Surtu was time barred under Punjab Limitation Custom Act, 1920.
The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for possession of shares in the suit properties.
