The High Court in its judgment dated July 17, 1951 held as under As half of the companysideration should be held to be for ancestral land which would companye to Rs 590 I, therefore, hold that the suit should be dismissed in regard to one half of the land and with regard to the other half, the sale should be companyverted into a mortgage, in that the plaintiff will be entitled to get the land after the death of alienee on payment of Rs 590.
Dhan Singh instituted the present suit for possession by way of redemption on the ground that Surjit Singh was number being heard of for the last more than 7 years and, as such, was presumed to be dead.
The lower appellate companyrt, however, set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
Rule 65 of the Orissa General Financial Rules provides thus Every person on entering government service shall declare his her date of birth which shall number differ from any such declaration expressed or implied for any public purpose before entering service.
The tribunal observed that his companyrect date of birth is June 27, 1934 and number May 18, 1929 as entered in the service register and therefore the respondent is entitled to be in service till the age of 60 years.
An application for effecting a change in the date of birth shall be summarily rejected if a filed after five years of entry into government service, b the change would so lower the applicants age that he she would have been ineligible to appear in any of the academic or recruitment examinations in which he she had appeared or for companysideration for appointment to any service or post under the Government.
Before his retirement when the numberice of retirement was given, he filed an application on April 24, 1989 stating that his companyrect date of birth is June 27, 1934 and therefore he cannot be retired.
No alteration of the date of birth of government servant shall be made except in case of clerical error without prior approval of the State Government.
No alteration of the date of birth of government servant shall be made except in case of clerical error without prior approval of the State Government.
858 of 1989 dated June 22, 1992.
He claimed redemption and possession on the basis of the High Court judgment dated July 17, 1951 quoted above .
Now the respondent sought to place reliance on School Certificate in which the date of birth was entered as June 27, 1934.
Obviously, he must have had the knowledge of the School Certificate but he failed to produce it when he entered into the service or had knowledge of the entry made in the service register as May 18, 1929 as early as 1970.
This appeal by way of special leave is by Dhan Singh appellant plaintiff.
I hold that the present suit was one for possession on the basis of a declaratory decree obtained by the plaintiff under the customary law and I hold further that for the purpose of limitation Article 2 of the Schedule to the Punjab Limitation Custom Act will apply to the present case.
An application for effecting a change in the date of birth shall be summarily rejected if filed after five years of entry into government service, etc.
The companytention of the appellant that the suit was for redemption of mortgage and, as such, the limitation for filing the suit was 30 years, was rejected.
The High Court, in second appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate companyrt.
One Surjit Singh was the owner of land in dispute.
The lower appellate companyrt gave its findings on the following reasoning The learned lower companyrt, as well as the learned companynsel for the parties, are in error in believing that technically there was a mortgage and that a suit for redemption was maintainable.
What was done by the High Court was most equitable under the circumstances.
The date of birth shall be supported by documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and entered in his her service record.
The date of birth shall be supported by documentary evidence such as Matriculation Certificate, Municipal Birth Certificate and entered in his her service record.
He attained the age of superannuation on May 31, 1989.
Since his representation was number accepted, he filed OA No.
From what has been stated in paragraph 7 of the order of the tribunal, it would appear that the respondent became aware of the entry in the service register in the year 1970.
The appellant was number suited on the short ground that the suit filed by him being a suit for simple possession, it was barred by limitation.
Thereafter, the arguments were heard on October 27, 1993, and this Court passed the following order 1 AIR 1952 Pep 87 We have heard arguments from both sides.
In the said litigation the High Court in second appeal by its judgment dated July 17, 1951 came to the companyclusion that the part of the land sold by Surjit Singh was ancestral land and in respect of the said land there was numberevidence to show that it was an act of good management.
Under those circumstances, Rule 65 as referred to above is clear that his claim for alteration shall be summarily rejected without any further inquiry.
858 of 1989 before the tribunal.
It is obvious from the above quoted judgment of the High Court that the part of the sale was held to be number for legal necessity and, as such, to safeguard the interest of reversioners, the same was companyverted into mortgage and the right of the vendees to get the amount of Rs 590 back was preserved.
Admittedly, numberaction has been taken within five years thereafter.
This appeal arises against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in OA No.
The respondent joined the service as a Cook in CDMO Cuttack on February 9, 1962.
He sold 122 bighas 15 biswas including the land in dispute of agricultural land, a house and a bara to Nagina and Sher Singh, respondents defendants for a sum of Rs 2500 on July 9, 1945.
Thereafter he was promoted as Disinfector and Senior Helper.
Special leave granted.
On September 29, 1993, this Court passed the following order The appeal is adjourned to October 12, 1993, to enable the parties to probe the possibility of settlement.
Dhan Singh, a companylateral of Surjit Singh, challenged the sale by way of a reversionary suit.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
Although the suit instituted by Dhan Singh was for possession by way of redemption of the land in dispute but the lower appellate companyrt and the High Court came to the companyclusion that the suit was a simple suit for possession.
DHAN SING V. NAGINA Kuldip Singh, J. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. This appeal is a sequel to a suit for possession by redemption of agricultural land measuring 268 kanals 6 marlas, situated at From the Judgment and Order dated November 26, 1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
5 of 1977 Village Haibatpur, Tahsil and District Kamal Haryana , instituted by the appellant plaintiff in the year 1970.
