On companysidering the entire avidence on record, the trial companyrt held that under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act the suit was beyond limitation and that the defendants would be deemed to be in adverse possession from 1952 and for that reason also the suit was barred by limitation.
Thus, the suit was dismissed on November 4,1974. .
On April 22, 1969, the suit was filed on the basis of title of the plaintiff.
the suit ought to have been filed within ninety days of the numberification dated November 1, 1962 but it was filed on April 22, 1969 so it was clearly barred that the High Court wrongly held that the suit was within limitation under the Limitation Act and allowed the Second Appeal.
That suit was decreed on December 1, 1964.
The plaintiff was numberified by the Punjab Government in 1965.
Later, the mortgage was redeemed by Ram Singh and the suit land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of Gurdwara Sahib but it companytinued in the possession of Pritam Singh.
Sometime thereafter the said Pritam Singh died and the present suit was brought against the defendants on April 22, 1969.
After declaration of Gurdwara as a Sikh Gurdwara, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabanohak Committee, Amritsar, filed asuit against the local Committee for recovery of possession of the suit land which was under its companytrol and management.
That finding was accepted by the First Appellate Court and it was held that under the Limitation Act the suit was number barred.
On October 31, 1968, the claim was dismissed holding that Pritam Singh was neither the mortgagee number the tenant of the suit land.
It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 and that till his death Pritam Singh was in possession of the suit land and thereafter they had been adverse possession thereof, so the title of plaintiff, if any, extinguished.
In execution of the decree actual possession of the suit land companyld number be taken from Pritam Singh, instead only symbolic possession was given to Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee.
The suit land originally belonged to one Ram Singh who gifted the same in favour of Gurdawara Sahib in 1951 while it was being held by Pritam Singh as a mortgagee.
1044 of 1378 by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, Chandigarh, on December 16, 1987.
The suit was resisted by the defendants denying the ownership of the plaintiff, the knowledge of the earlier suit and taking of symbolic possession of the suit and from the said Pritam Singh.
1044 of 1378 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the companyrectness of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.
The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala.
The appeal arises out of the suit filed by respondent No.l referred to in this judgment as the plaintiff against the appellants and respondent Nos.
It then initiated proceedings against Pritam Singh before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade for recovery of rents.
9 A. Whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the property in dispute and if so, since when and what is its effect?
agreeing with the trial companyrt that under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act the suit was barred, the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on March 8, 1978, The plaintiff filed Second Appeal No.
S to 4 who are the legal representatives of one Pritam Singh referred to in this judgment as the defendants for recovery of possession of agricultural land measuring 160 Kanals 16 Marlas situated at village Salbehra tehsil district Patiala hereinafter referred to as the suit land .
However.
It is against that judgment and decree that this appeal is filed.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAPRI, J. The judgment sna decree under challenge In this appeal, by special leave, were passed in Second Appeal No.
The Appellate Court framed the following additional issue No.9 A and called for finding from the trial companyrt.
