Thereafter on November 20, 1990 the plaintiffs appellants again filed a fresh shit Civil Suit No, 661 of 1994.
The High Court, however, granted Certificate and leave to appeal to Suprame Court on the point whether a widow forefelts her rights or number by Karewa marriage with her brother in law.
The land in suit is the anoestral land originally belonging to Gulab Singh who died leaving behind him his five sons.
Subesquently, on May 20, 1971 the plaintiffs withdrew their civil suit No.
The plaintiffa appellants who are two sons of late Gulab Singh filed a declaratory suit on 19.1.1992 by companytending that they were in possession as owners of 2/3 share in the estate of Dalip Singh, the late husband of defendant respondent No.
However the order dated May 20,1971 passed by the civil companyrt was on record which did number indicate as to what was the formal defect in the suit by reason of which the permission to withdraw the same was accorded.
In these facts and circumstances numbercase for action and for the same relief after the withdrawal of the earliar suit was made out by the plaintiffs appellants in accordance with the provisions of clause 2 of Order XXIII rule 1 of the Code.
1 had lost her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Dalip Singh when she companytracted Karewa merriage with her brother in law, Chand Singh.
The said suit of the plaintiffs was diamissed on June 1989 on the findings that the defendant respondent No.
1 had forefeited her tight in the estate of her deceased husband on acoount of marriage, by virtue of the prevalent oustom amongst them and the plaintiffs being the reversionaries were entitled to inherit the same.
The defendant respondent No.
namely.
As regards the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act it was essential for its application to show that the proceedings related to the same matter in issue and the plaintiff prosecuted the suit in good faith in a companyrt which, from dafact of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature is unable to entertain it.The Additional District Judge, Faridkot by his judgment dated August 27, 1985 as well as the High Court by the impugned judgment dated September 4, 1986 upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal against which this appeal has been directed.
Thereafter the plaintiffs filed another suit against the defendant respondent No.
881 of 1984 form the Court of sub judge with liberty to file a fresh suit for possession of land.
On July 24 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent Bada Kaur upholding the judgment of the civil companyrts and the high Court holding that the respondent No.
But the appeal filed by plaintiffs against the said judgment and decree was allowed on August 7, 1993 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial companyrt.
1 had perfected her title by adverse possession.
Dalip Singh died in the year 1932 whereafter the respondent Sada Kaur companytracted Karewa marriage with Chand Singh the younger brother of her deceased husband Dalip Singh.
1st Class, Muktsar as barred by limitation by his judgment and dagree dated May 17, 1902 which has been affirmed by the First appellate Court and the High Court.
The Sub Judge took the view that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation and the defendant respondent No.
1 did number forefait her right on her remarriage with the younger brother of her late husband.
1 being civil suit No, 884 of 1984 to got back the possession of the suit land as according to them, in the mean while the defendant had taken forolble possession of the suit land.
Sampuran Singh, Jeet Singh, Dalip Singh, and Bakhtawar Singh, The defendant respondent herein was to Dalip Singh.
1 filed second appeal in the High Court against the reversing judgment of the appeallate companyrt dated August 7, 1963 but High Court maintained the judgment and decree and dismissed the second appeal.
Faizan Uddin, J. 1.
this is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs whose suit far deolaration to the effect that they are in possession as owners of 2/3 share in the estate of the husband of respondent No.
