Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed

Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 1558/1999
Neutral Citation:2006 (3) S.C.R. 208

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • B. P. Singh
  • Al Tamas Kabir
Judgment Date
2006-03-22
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jagat Ram

Respondents

  • Varinder Prakash

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • B. S. Banthia

Counsels for Respondents

  • • L. Nageshwar Rao
  • • Raj Jayant
  • • Rajeev Shanna
  • • K.K. Shanna
  • • Rupesh Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash concerns a long-standing family dispute over possession of land gifted in 1920 to Sunder’s daughter Manshan, with Sunder’s widow Kirpi securing a life estate by a 1945 compromise and the property to pass to Kirpi’s daughter after her death. Kirpi later adopted Varinder Prakash and executed a gift deed in his favor. Manshan sought to cancel the gift; the trial court decreed against Kirpi, and that decree was unsuccessfully challenged in portions of a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed in 1981. Upon Kirpi’s death in 1967, Manshan’s son Jagat Ram filed a suit for recovery of possession on 14 December 1982. The trial court dismissed as barred by limitation; the first appellate court allowed the appeal, while the High Court reversed that conclusion and held the suit barred, since under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the 12-year period begins when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse, which in this case is the death of the Hindu female. The Supreme Court, in dismissing Jagat Ram’s special leave petition, affirmed the High Court’s interpretation of Article 65( b) and held that the suit should have been filed within 12 years of Kirpi’s death. It rejected contentions that pending litigation under adoption and gift deeds tolled limitations or that Article 141 under the old Act could override the 1963 Act. The appeal is dismissed, with no tolling caused by earlier litigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65(b)Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14(1) and 14(2)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the Limitation Act, 1963 introduced a changed framework from the old Act (Article 141) and that the High Court erred in treating the old limitation position as controlling. It was argued that the pending litigation relating to adoption and the gift deed should not bar the suit, and that the plaintiff should not be penalized for not asserting possession during that litigation. Still, the essential point urged was that Article 65(b) begins the limitation period when the defendant’s possession becomes adverse, which the appellant argued did not necessarily align with a strict reading of Kirpi’s death; the appellant urged a more lenient tolling due to ongoing proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that under Article 65(b) the 12-year limitation begins when the widow’s death occurred (1967), and the plaintiff failed to file within that period. They asserted that the pending adoption/gift-deed litigation could not toll the limitation, and that the old Article 141 framework could not override the 1963 Act. They relied on the text that possession becomes adverse only on the death of the female.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jagat Ram v. Varinder Prakash and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B JAGAT RAM _v._ VAR IND ER PRAKASH MARCH 22, 2006 [B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) _Limitation Act, 1963-Article 65-Suit for possession of immovable property on death of Hindu female-Limitation for-Suit filed after 12 years from the death of the female-Held: Such suit if not filed within 12 years of_ C _the death of the Hindu female, would be barred by limitation-Jn such case possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only from the date when the female dies and not from some other date._ The suit land was gifted to the mother of appellant-plaintiff by 'S'. D Suit by widow of 'S' resulted in compromise to the effect that widow of 'S' would enjoy the suit property during her life time and after her death, the same could be inherited by mother of appellant. Thereafter widow of 'S' adopted respondent-defendant and executed a gift deed in his favour. The adoption and gift deed were challenged by filing a suit which was decreed. Widow of 'S' died in 1967. The decree was challenged in Letters E Patent Appeal, which was dismissed in 1981. Mother of appellant filed the present suit in 1982 for recovery of possession of the suit land. It was dismissed as barred by limitation by trial court. The judgment of trial court was upset in first appeal. In second appeal, High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the same was not filed within 12 years F from the date of death of widow of 'S'. Hence the present appeal. ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. High Court has rightly held that the suit should have been filed by the plaintiff within 12 years of the death of the Hindu female, and the same having not been filed within 12 years was barred by limitation. Article 65 of the Limitation act, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation for possession of immovable property or any interest based on title where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to possession of immovable _W7_ G H 12006] 3 S.C.R. 208 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS A property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female. Article 65(b) in express terms provides that "the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when female dies". The limitation prescribed is 12 years beginning from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Article itself provides that the B possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies. It cannot be said that limitation does not run from the date on which the Hindu female died and that it would start running from some other date. 12 lO-C-Fl 2. It cannot be said that in view of the pending litigation relating to C the adoption and gift deed executed in favour of the defandant, in the Letters Patent Appeal till 1981, the appellant- plaintiff could not have filed the present suit. In the litigation which was pending before the High Court the plaintiff had not claimed possession of the suit land. High Court has rightly pointed out that even if the plaintiff had sought amendment of the D pleadings in the pending matter and claimed decree for possession, the legal position would have been different. He having not done so, he should have filed the suit for possession of the suit lands within 12 years of the death, which he failed to do. 1210-F-H; 21 l-AI CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1558/1999. E From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1997 of the High Court of H.P. in R.S.A. No. 4 I 0/1991. B. S. Banthia for the Appellant. F L. Nageshwar Rao, Raj Jayant. Rajeev Shanna, K.K. Shanna and Rupesh Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court w..as delivered by B.P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the G judgment and order dated 3.10.1997 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shim la in regular second appeal no. 410 of 1991. The appellant before us is the plaintiff whose suit for possession was dismissed by the High Court holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The correctness of the judgment is impugned before us. H 209 JAGAT RAM _v._ VARINDER PRAKASH [B.P. SINGH, J.] A The facts not in dispute are as follows: One Sunder, owner of the suit land, died leaving behind his widow Smt. Kirpi and two daughters, namely Smt. Manshan and Smt. Sita Devi. The appellant-plaintiff, namely Jagat Ram, is the son of Smt. Manshan while Varinder Prakash claimed to be son of Smt. Sita Devi but adopted by Smt. Kirpi - widow of Sunder. B Sunder had executed, during his life time, a gift deed on 23.6.1920 in favour of his daughter Smt. Manshan (mother of the plaintiff). He died on 17.9.1941. On 3rd August, 1945, Smt. Kirpi, widow of Sunder, filed suit against Smt. Manshan which finally resulted into a compromise to the effect C that Smt. Kirpi will enjoy the suit property as long as she was alive and after her death the properly will be inherited by her daughter Manshan. It appears that on 23.8.1958, Smt. Kirpi executed an adoption deed in favour her second daughter's son, namely Varinder Prakash - defendant and also executed gift deed in his favour. Smt. Manshan, m~ther of the plaintiff, filed a suit on D 27.5.1959 for cancellation of the gift deed and for a declaration that the adoption was illegal. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 16.1.1960. On 5.9.1967, Smt. Kirpi, widow of Sunder, died. The decree obtained by Smt. Manshan was u,himately challenged in Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court by the defendant, which was dismissed on 18.11. I 98 I. E After the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal on 18.11.1981, Smt. Manshan filed the. instant suit for recovery of possession of the suit land on 14.12.1982. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 24.6.1986 holding that the suit was barred by limitation. However, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was upset by the Additional F District Judge by judgment and decree of 19th September, 1991. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the appellate Court was challenged before the High Court in the second appeal and the same was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 3rd October, 1997. The High Court held that under the compromise of 3rd August, 1945 a right was conceded in favour of Kirpi to G enjoy the suit land during her life time. The High Court further held that Kirpi had no pre-existing right of maintenance, and therefore, the case was covered by Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and not by Section 14(1 ). However, the High Court held that the suit filed by the appellantplaintiff on 14.12.1982 was barred by limitation since the widow had died on 5.9.1967 and the suit for possession was not filed within 12 years of her H [2006] 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 210 A death. Learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that while under the old Limitation Act, Article 141 governed the case, so far as the Limitation Act of 1963 is concerned the legal position has changed. The High Court B failed to notice this change in law and erroneously held on the basis of the limitation prescribed under the old Limitation Act that the suit was barred by limitation. In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the C period of limitation for possession of immovable property or any interest based on title where the suit is by a Hindu or Muslim entitled to possession of immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Muslim female. Article 65(b) in express terms provides that "the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when female dies''. The limitation D prescribed is 12 years beginning from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. Learned counsel submitted that in view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 th~ suit had to be filed within 12 years from the date on which the possession of the defendant became adverse and, therefore, it was immaterial as to when the Hindu female died. E It is not possible to sustain the contention because the Article itself provides that the possession of the defendant shall be deemed to become adverse only when the female dies. Thus, there is no scope for the argument that limitation does not run from the date on which the Hindu female died and that it would start running from some other date. In our view, the High Court has rightly held that the suit should have been filed by the plaintiff within 12 years of F the death of the Hindu female, namely Smt. Kirpi, and the same having not been filed within 12 years was barred by limitation. Much was sought to be made of the pending litigation relating to the adoption and gift deed executed in favour of the defendant. It was contended before us that since the matter was still pending and though the plaintiffs suit had been decreed on 16.1.1960, G the plaintiff could not have filed the instant suit till such time as the Letters Patent Appeal was not dismissed by the High Court i.e. till 18.11.1981. The submission has no substance because in the litigation which was pending before the High Court the plaintiff had not claimed possession of the suit land. The High Court has rightly pointed out that even if the plaintiff had H sought amendment of the pleadings in the pending matter and claimed decree for possession, the legal position would have been different. He having not 211 JAGAT RAM _v._ VARINDER PRAKASH [B.P. SINGH, J.] done so, he should have filed the suit for possession of the suit land within 12 years of the death of Smt. Kirpi, which he failed to do. We find no reason to set aside the judgment of the High .Court. This appeal is therefore dismissed. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.