Issue
Facts
Reasoning
Decision
Ram Saran & Another
v.
Ganga Devi
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 726 of 1968 | 17-04-1972
Hegde, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave. Ram Saran and Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are brothers. They jointly owned suit property with Chhabili Kuer, widow of Lalita Prasad. After the death of Chhabili Kuer, on February 8, 1971, Ganga Devi, the defendant in the suit came forward as the legal representative of Chhabili Kuer and got the mutation effected in her name in the place of the deceased Chhabili Kuer. In 1958, the plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they are the sole owners of the suit properties. They did not claim possession either the entire or even any portion of the suit properties.
2. The fact finding courts, namely the trial court as well as the appellate courts have come to the conclusion that during the life-time of Chhabili, she was in possession of a portion of the suit properties and the other portion remained in possession of the plaintiffs. The further finding reached by those courts is that after the death of Chhabili Kuer, Ganga Devi took unlawful possession of the properties which were in possession of Chhabili Kuer. They also found that Ganga Devi was not the heir of Chhabili but on the other hand the plaintiffs were her heirs.
3. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the present suit falls within the scope of Section 209 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1951, and the suit not having been brought within the period of three years as provided in that Act, the suit is barred by limitation. The High Court agreed with that conclusion. In addition it held that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. We are in agreement with the High Court that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. As found by the fact-finding courts, Ganga Devi is in possession of some of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have not sought possession of those properties. They merely claimed a declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties. Hence the suit is not maintainable. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the other contention that the suit is barred by limitation.
5. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave. Ram Saran and Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are brothers. They jointly owned suit property with Chhabili Kuer, widow of Lalita Prasad. After the death of Chhabili Kuer, on February 8, 1971, Ganga Devi, the defendant in the suit came forward as the legal representative of Chhabili Kuer and got the mutation effected in her name in the place of the deceased Chhabili Kuer. In 1958, the plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they are the sole owners of the suit properties. They did not claim possession either the entire or even any portion of the suit properties.
2. The fact finding courts, namely the trial court as well as the appellate courts have come to the conclusion that during the life-time of Chhabili, she was in possession of a portion of the suit properties and the other portion remained in possession of the plaintiffs. The further finding reached by those courts is that after the death of Chhabili Kuer, Ganga Devi took unlawful possession of the properties which were in possession of Chhabili Kuer. They also found that Ganga Devi was not the heir of Chhabili but on the other hand the plaintiffs were her heirs.
3. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the present suit falls within the scope of Section 209 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1951, and the suit not having been brought within the period of three years as provided in that Act, the suit is barred by limitation. The High Court agreed with that conclusion. In addition it held that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. We are in agreement with the High Court that the suit is hit by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. As found by the fact-finding courts, Ganga Devi is in possession of some of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have not sought possession of those properties. They merely claimed a declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties. Hence the suit is not maintainable. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the other contention that the suit is barred by limitation.
5. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
Advocates List
For the Appellant M/s. J.P. Goyal, Sobhagmal Jain, Advocates. For the Respondent G.N. Dixit, Sr. Advocate, Vimal Dave, Kailash Mehta, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. HEGDE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. GROVER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. MITTER
Eq Citation
(1973) 2 SCC 60
1973 43 AWR 48
AIR 1972 SC 2685
1972 RD 251
LQ/SC/1972/233
HeadNote
A. Limitation Act, 1963 — S. 27 — Suit for declaration of sole ownership — Held, suit is not maintainable — As found by fact-finding courts, defendant was in possession of some of suit properties — Plaintiffs merely claimed a declaration that they are owners of suit properties — Hence, suit is not maintainable — Further held, it is not necessary to go into other contention that suit is barred by limitation — Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 42
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
