The High Court numbered in the order the admissions thus Wherein admissions regarding property at Item No.1 have been made, by the respondent Nihal Chand, such as AW 1/4 evidence given by Nihal ChandAW 5/7 written statement of Nihal Chand dated 26.8.57, AW 2/3 dated 8th October, 1965, an application filed on behalf of Nihal Chand claiming 1/3rd share in this property AS 5/6 application dated 29.7.54 by Nihal Chand, AW 4/1 the desolation deed, AW 6/2 the companyy from the entries of the register of the property tax for the years 1956 to 1961 AW 6/3 for the years 1960 to 1965AW 6/9 for the years 1965 to 1970, in which the share of Chiranji Lal insolvent has been shown as 1/3rd.
The Official Receiver, after taking over the estate, filed an application under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on August 16, 1966 for a declaration that the insolvent had 1/3rd share in items mentioned in paras 4, 6 and 7 and 2/3rd share in property listed in para 5 of the petition.
The Insolvency Court declared that he had got 1/3rd share in some properties and 2/3rd share in some other but on appeal the District Court declared that Chiranji Lal had 1/3rd share in Item No.317, 326 in Division Number 3 in Ludhiana and 1000 sq.
OM, dated 2nd June, 1935 are in favour of all the three brother, including Chiranji Lal, insolvent, and hence 1/3rd share in the property, which is the subject matter of these sale deeds, does number vest in the Official Receiver.
The insolvent Chiranji Lal claimed to have 1/3rd or 2/3rd share, as the case may be.
The question then is whether in items 1 and 3 as numbered by the High Court, the insolvent had 1/3rd share.
On appeal filed by Nihal Chand and Sarwan Kumar, the District Court, by order dated August 29, 1955, declared them to be number insolvents and set aside the order of the Insolvent Court.
in Civil Lines, which the High Court identified as item number 1 and 3 and held that Chiranji Lal had 1/3rd share in those properties.
The revision filed in the High Court was dismissed on September 29, 1959.
OL dated 17th April, 1940 and Ex.
The Insolvency Court initially declared all the three partners and the partnership firm by name Chiranji Lal Nihal Chand as insolvents.
OC dated 2nd June, 1938, Ex.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order in Second Appeal No.4/75 dated February 15, 1980.
The limitation, therefore, would begin to run when the appellants sought to create cloud over that right setting up their entitlement or title to these properties.
It was done after the application under Section 4 was made by the Official Receiver.
Thus as far as Chiranji Lal is companycerned, the order declaring him to be insolvent became final.
When the appellants claimed exclusive title to these properties, the cloud on the title of the Official Receiver, who had taken over the estate, was cast.
Consequently, the suit regarding the property in item No.1 and 3 was held to be within time.
In the proceedings for declaration of insolvency, the firm as well as the appellants father and Chiranji Lal and another were declared to be number insolvent.
Consequently, the limitation began to run when the cloud was cast.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Thus, the application was within limitation.
