AMAR SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jiwa Singh was admittedly a lunatic. Kishan Singh entered into an oral exchange with him in regard to agricultural land on 13th November, 1958 and took possession of lunatic's land. While the Tehsildar sanctioned mutation of exchange on 28th March, 1962, the Collector rejected the mutation on 30th July, 1962 on the ground that exchange with a lunatic was not legal and no title with regard to lunatic's land passed on to Kishan Singh. On 12th May, 1963 Jiwa Singh died as an insane person. The plaintiffs along with others inherited the estate left by Jiwa Singh and filed the present suit on 9th November, 1970 to seek possession of the land which was illegally occupied by Kishan Singh under the pretext of an oral exchange. Kishan Singh contested the suit and one of the main pleas raised by him was that it was time barred by limitation. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings that the suit should have been brought within three years from the date of the death of Jiwa Singh in view of Article 102 read with Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Courts below erred in law in relying on Article 102 of the Act. Article 102 of the Act is in the following terms :

(3.) It is a case of simple suit for possession and to my mind any of the Article 64 or 65 of the Act would be applicable. From both the Articles the suit filed on 9th November, 1970 is clearly within 12 years of 13th November, 1958 when Kishan Singh respondent entered into illegal possession. If Article 65 alone were to apply then it would have been for Kishan Singh to prove to the satisfaction of the Court as to from which date he claimed adverse possession and if the suit had been brought beyond 12 years of that only then it would have been time barred. In view of the above, the findings of the two Courts below on the point of limitation are reversed and it is held that the suit is within limitation.