Kitabo Devi and Others v. Shanti Devi and Others

IN T

Kitabo Devi and Shanti Devi and

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

for

Mr

for

Res MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre namely Kitabo Shanti Devi and judgment and d Court. Brief Facts

2.

daughters of Suk of Jage Ram, th Sukha @ Sukhi Sukhi Ram had THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da d Others

VERSUS d Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Surender Lamba, Advocate the appellants. r. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate respondents No. 1 to 3. spondents No.4 to 10 proceed ex -.-

ANNU,J. esent RSA has been filed by the Devi and others, who are the d others (plaintiffs and defenda decree dated 03.12.2016 passed e plaintiffs, namely Shanti D kha @ Sukhi Ram, instituted a s he legal representatives of Ran i Ram. The brief facts, as set o three daughters, i.e., the present

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-218-2017 (O&M) served on:-03.09.2025 ate of Decision : 05.09.2025

....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU

x-pare. e appellants/defendants No. 1 to legal heirs of Jage Ram, agai ants No. 6 to 12), challenging d by the learned Lower Appel evi, Chhotan Devi, and Dhap suit against the legal representati n Singh, and Ram Kishan, sons out in the plaint, are that Sukha t plaintiffs, and three sons, name

- o 5, inst late pan, ives s of a @ ely,

Ram Kishan (de defendants No. No. 1 to 5).

3.

It w defendants Ram the suit land. H his death, the pl became owners plaintiffs is that their parental h agricultural land them the rent, mutation of inh and attested ex plaintiffs.

4.

It w mutation of his i.e., defendants According to the and, therefore, l declaration to th shares as reflect was prayed that during the pende efendant No. 12), Ran Singh (si 6 to 11), and Jage Ram (prede was pleaded that Sukha @ Sukh m Kishan, Ran Singh, and Jage R He died about 18–19 years prior laintiffs along with their three b s in possession of the suit land t being married in different villa house for the purpose of collec d. However, in the year 2008, w they approached the Halqa Pa heritance of their father Sukha @ xclusively in favour of the oth was further pleaded that after inheritance was sanctioned in No. 6 to 11, without recogn e plaintiffs, both these mutations liable to be set aside. The plainti he effect that they are owners in ted in the Jamabandi for the yea t in case they are found to be ou ency of the proceedings, the suit

ince deceased) now represented eceased) represented by defenda hi Ram, father of the plaintiffs Ram, was the owner in possession to the institution of the suit. Up brothers succeeded to the estate d in equal shares. The case of ages, they occasionally used to v cting rent of their share from when the defendants refused to p atwari and came to know that @ Sukhi Ram had been sanction her heirs to the exclusion of the death of Ran Singh also, favour of his legal representativ nizing the share of the plainti s are wrong, illegal, and against iffs accordingly sought a decree possession of the suit land in eq ars 2004–2005. In the alternative ut of possession or are disposses t be decreed for joint possession.

- d by ants n of pon visit pay ves, iffs. law for qual e, it ssed

5.

Up Jage Ram, and Defendants No. his separate wr objections were grounds. On me by the plaintiffs of Sukha @ Su Kishan, and Jag Sukha @ Sukhi immovable prop attested in their

6.

defendants, whe those in the writ

7.

Fro for adjudication

¶1in e

¶2bea of

¶04to b on notice, defendants No. 1 to 5 defendant No. 12, Ram Kishan 1 to 5 filed a joint written state ritten statement. In both sets o e raised regarding locus standi, m erits, the defendants categorical . It was specifically pleaded that ukhi Ram, who had only thre ge Ram. On this basis, the defend Ram, they alone became owner perty, and that the mutations of i favour. e plaintiffs filed replication t erein they reiterated the averme tten statements. om the pleadings of the parties, n: Whether the plaintiffs are ow equal shares? OPP Whether mutation of inher aring No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, Ran Singh, son of Sukha @ S

09.2003, are illegal, wrong, nul be set aside? OPP

5, being the legal representatives n, appeared and contested the s ement, while defendant No. 12 fi of written statements, prelimin maintainability, and other techni lly denied the relationship claim t the plaintiffs are not the daught ee sons, namely, Ran Singh, R dants asserted that after the death rs in possession of his movable inheritance were rightly entered to the written statements of ents made in the plaint and den , the following issues were fram wners in possession of suit prope ritance of Sukha @ Sukhi R and mutation regarding inherita Sukhi Ram, bearing No. 423 da ll and void ab-initio and thus lia

- s of suit. filed nary ical med ters Ram h of nied med erty Ram ance ated

¶3to pra

¶4form

¶5suit

¶6han OP

7.

8.

8.

Bot Findings of the

9.

Aft counsel for the action, if any, ac Ram died, or on Ram was entere period of limitat arisen.

10.

It w the Court should can be given to If the above issues are proved a decree of declaration with a ayed for? OPP Whether the present suit is m? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have t? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have n nds and have concealed true an PD Whether the present suit is ho Relief. th the parties led their respective e Trial Court ter appreciating the pleadings a parties, the learned trial court r ccrued to the plaintiffs either on n 21.07.1995, when the mutation ed and attested, whereas the pres tion, that is, three years from the was further observed that the law d be vigilant enough to check th o a person who has approached

d, whether the plaintiffs are entit alternative relief of possession s not maintainable in the pres no locus standi to file the pres not approached the Court with cl nd material facts from the Cou opelessly time-barred? OPD e evidence. and evidence and hearing learn returned a finding that the cause n 20.06.1991, when Sukha @ Su n of inheritance of Sukha @ Su sent suit has not been filed withi e date on which cause of action h w regarding limitation is clear, he limitation on the suit, as no re d the Court beyond the prescrib

- tled n as sent sent lean urt? e of ukhi ukhi in a had elief

period of limitat was dismissed o

11.

Fee learned trial Cou Findings of the

12.

by setting aside suit land is join plaintiffs have a are threatened.

13.

It w being in posses existing right in @ Sukhi Ram, t Sukhi Ram. It w plaintiffs had ev their father after the plaintiffs we limitation stood

14.

including a Div versus Smt. Sha limitation for fil

15.

Acc defendants, and tion. Accordingly, considering th on that ground. eling aggrieved by the aforesaid urt, an appeal was preferred by th e Lower Appellate Court e learned Lower Appellate Cou the judgment and decree passed ntly owned and possessed by the a continuing cause of action to f was further observed that the p ssion as co-sharers, and the bas n the suit land on the ground of in their father, by challenging the m was further observed that there is ver approached the revenue auth r his death, and it is not even the ere present at the time of attestat determined against the defendan e learned Lower Appellate Cou vision Bench judgment of this arifa @ Shanti reported in 1979 ling a suit on the basis of inherita cordingly, the point of limi d the suit of the plaintiffs was

he suit to be barred by limitation judgment and decree passed by he plaintiffs. urt decreed the suit of the plaint d by the trial court, holding that e parties to the suit. Therefore, file the suit as and when their rig plaintiffs were claiming declarat sis for such declaration was a p nheritance of the property of Suk mutation of inheritance of Sukha s nothing on record to show that horities for sanction of mutation e case of the defendants that any tion of mutation. Thus, the poin nts. urt relied upon various judgmen Court in Ibrahim @ Dharam 9 PLJ 469 and held that there is ance. itation was decided against decreed to the effect that they

- n, it tiffs ghts tion pre-kha a @ n of y of nt of nts, mvir s no

owners in posse the year 1994–9 @ Sukhi Ram a Singh are wron rights of the plai

16.

Fee Appellate Court Devi and others Submissions of

17.

It i 5 that the impug Appellate Court set aside. It is s the present suit cause of action Sukhi Ram as w Sukhi Ram was that Sukha @ S entered and atte of action.

18.

It w to visit their pa that they had kn favour of the so prescribed perio ession in equal shares of the lan

¶95It was further declared that th as well as the mutation of inhe g, illegal, void, and liable to be intiffs. eling aggrieved by the above o t, the present appeal has been fil , legal heirs of Jage Ram s/o Suk f Learned Counsel for the Appe s argued by learned counsel for gned judgment and decree dated t is against facts, contrary to law submitted that the learned Appel was filed beyond the period of arose to the plaintiffs, i.e., on well as the date on which the m s entered and attested. Referring Sukhi Ram died on 20.06.1991 a sted on 21.07.1995, whereas the was further argued that it is an a arental house for collecting rent nowledge of the death of their f ons. Despite this knowledge, th od. It was next contended that

nd as reflected in the Jamabandi he mutation of inheritance of Suk eritance regarding the share of R e set aside as not binding upon order passed by the learned Low led by appellants/defendants Kita kha @ Sukhi Ram. ellants r the appellants/defendants No. 1 d 03.12.2016 passed by the learn w, illegal, void, and deserves to llate Court failed to appreciate t f limitation of three years after the death of their father Sukha mutation of inheritance of Sukha g to Exhibit P-5, counsel submit and the mutation of inheritance w e suit was filed much after the ca admitted fact that the plaintiffs u of their share. This clearly sho father as well as of the mutation hey did not file the suit within t the plaintiffs never remained

- for kha Ran wer abo 1 to o be that a @ a @ tted was ause used ows n in

possession and t possession, the However, since owners in posse trial court rightl learned Lower A Submissions of

19.

On argued that the learned Lower A period of limita heirs succeed to entries do not co the sons exclud daughters. It wa

20.

In s Mohinder Sing AIR 1985 Pun inheritance doe immediately up prescribed for fi Findings of Thi

21.

I h parties and hav that they have not sought the re suit filed within 12 years wo e the plaintiffs sought only decl ession, the limitation of three y ly held that the suit was barred Appellate Court, therefore, are pe f Learned Counsel for respond n the other hand, learned counse ere is no illegality in the well-Appellate Court. It was contende ation is prescribed, as inheritan o the property of the deceased onfer title, and the mere fact that ding the daughters cannot den as urged that the suit cannot be he support of his contentions, coun gh (died) and Rep. by his LRs a njab 215, wherein a Division s not remain in abeyance and pon the death of the last male iling a suit for possession based o is Court have considered the rival subm ve carefully perused the record.

lief of possession. Had they sou ould have been within limitati laration to the effect that they years applies, and thus, the learn d by limitation. The findings of erverse and liable to be set aside ent Nos. 1 to 3 el for the respondents/plaintiffs -reasoned judgment passed by ed that in matters of inheritance, nce never remains in abeyance in accordance with law. Mutat t the same were entered in favou ny the right of inheritance to eld to be time-barred. nsel for the respondents relied up and Another Vs. Kashmira Sin n Bench of this Court held t that heirs succeed to the prope holder, and that no limitation on inheritance. missions of learned counsel for . The sole question that arises

- ught ion. are . has , no tion r of pon ngh, that erty n is

consideration is limitation.

22.

It is period of limitat succession. The holder, and such sanctioned in fa for revenue purp

23.

principle that w continuing caus Singh (died) an Court categoric based upon inhe Court in Ganpa 9, wherein it wa inheritance, and

24.

Sim Daulat Singh ( entitled to succe Succession Act, divest her of h property, the wi the absolute own s whether the suit instituted s a settled principle of law that in tion is prescribed for seeking po e rights of heirs arise immediate h rights cannot be defeated mere avour of some heirs excluding oth poses and does not create or extin e Learned Lower Appellate Co where a plaintiff bases his or her e of action so long as their right nd Rep. by his LRs and Anothe ally held that no limitation is p eritance. This view was also affir at and another versus Lachhman as held that there is no limitation d such a suit cannot be dismissed milarly, the Hon'ble Supreme

(dead) by LRs, 1997 (3) RCR eed and become absolute owner , and mere sanction of mutation i her right. Mutation entries can idow must be deemed to have co ner.

by the plaintiffs was barred n matters relating to inheritance, ossession of property on the basis ely upon the death of the last m ely on the ground that mutation w hers. Mutation is only a fiscal en nguish title. ourt was correct in relying on claim on inheritance, there exis t is denied. In the case of Mohin r (supra), a Division Bench of t prescribed for a suit for possess rmed by a Coordinate Bench of t n and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Ci n for a suit for possession based d as time-barred. Court in Balwant Singh ver (Civil) 409, held that a widow r under the provisions of the Hin in favour of another person will nnot convey or extinguish title ontinued in possession and beco

- by , no s of male was ntry ts a nder this sion this ivil) d on rsus w is ndu not e in

25.

As judgment of a D Smt. Sharifa @ mutation in the plaintiff to file a

26.

It i envisaged in th recognized as C along with the s immediately on Such rights of recognition by w merely a fiscal extinguish the inheritance has unless lawfully daughter's righ technical ground one, subsisting s perspective of s and their claim filed beyond thr

27.

In v it is evident th consonance wit regards the cause of action, re Division Bench of this Court i @ Shanti, 1979 PLJ 469, wher name of a defendant would not a suit for declaration. is also pertinent to observe tha he Hindu Succession Act, 195 Class-I heirs, entitled to inherit sons. The right of succession is the death of the last male holde f inheritance flow from statut way of mutation or other entries arrangement for collection of l vested rights of heirs under s crystallized by operation of la divested in accordance with ht to succeed to her father's p d of limitation, as the cause of so long as her right is denied or succession law, the daughters st based on inheritance cannot be ree years from the date of attestat view of the above-discussion an hat the findings of the learne th law. The plaintiffs were claim

eference may also be made to in Ibrahim @ Dharamveer ver re it was held that mere entry t furnish any cause of action to at under the law of succession 6, as amended, the daughters t the estate of their father equa a substantive right, which accr er and does not remain in abeyan te and not from any subsequ s in the revenue record. Mutation land revenue and cannot curtail succession law. Once the right aw, the same continues to sub statutory provisions. Therefore property cannot be denied on action in such cases is a recurr r threatened. Thus, viewed from and on an equal footing with so defeated merely because the sui tion of mutation. nd applying these settled princip ed Lower Appellate Court are ming inheritance from their fat

- rsus y of n as are ally rues nce. uent n is l or t of bsist e, a ring ons, it is ples, e in

Sukha @ Sukh limitation. The t settled law that Appellate Court decreed the suit Conclusion

28.

Acc the learned Low plaintiffs is not possession of t mutations, is aff

29.

30.

Pen

September 05, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh hi Ram, and their right canno trial court, in dismissing the suit t no limitation is prescribed in t rightly held that the plaintiffs h . cordingly, this Court upholds th wer Appellate Court dated 03.12 barred by limitation, and the dec the suit land in equal shares, firmed. e appeal is accordingly dismissed nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

ot be defeated on the ground as barred by limitation, ignored n such cases. The learned Low had a continuing cause of action he judgment and decree passed

2.2016. It is held that the suit of cree declaring them to be owner while setting aside the impugn d. stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

- d of wer d by