DEENA DEAD Vs. BHARAT SINGH DEAD
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
July 29,2002
DEENA
Appellant
VERSUS
BHARAT SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RABINDRA NATH SAMUEL DAWSON VS. SIVAKASI [REFERRED]VIJAY KUMAR RAMPAL VS. DIWAN DEVI [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. SIMPLEX GAYATRI CONSORTIUM [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-92] [REFERRED TO]NARAYANSINGH S/O OMKARSINGH BAGHEL VS. ARUNA WD/O SHYAMRAO PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-192] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL, SAINIK SCHOOL, NAGROTA, JAMMU VS. A. JEYARAMAN [LAWS(J&K)-2010-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAT PRASAD VS. RAMESH CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-289] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORILAL DUBEY VS. PREMCHAND SHRIVASTAVA (DECEASED) THROUGH L RS SHAIL SHRIVASTAVA & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
KOLLI VENKATA MOHAN RAO VS. J.M. PATRICIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-222] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMID ABDUL KADAR VS. MOHAMED HASANKHAN AMIRKHAN [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER KUMAR GUPTA VS. SUKHBIR SINGH SAINI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL BHASIN VS. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS INDIA LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-352] [REFERRED TO]
A BALUSAMY VS. V MUTHULAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. VS. C.G. POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-307] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP SINGHANIA VS. ANIL KUMAR SINGHANIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
A P AUL AND ORS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2012-8-548] [REFERRED]
JAGAT SINGH AND ANR. VS. HOSHIARI DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN RATHI VS. RAMDAS AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-88] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH VS. M/S JUGGAT PHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-198] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM & ORS VS. RAN SINGH & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-181] [REFERRED TO]
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. TEJ PARAS ASSOCIATES AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. TEJ PARAS ASSOCIATES AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD GUPTA VS. PRASANNA KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2005-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDER KAUR AND ORS. VS. PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-391] [REFERRED TO]
FORESHORE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. PRAVEEN D DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC TRUST, RAMJANKI MANDIR BHATULA, VILLAGE GHATULA VS. SAHDEV RAM (DEAD) [LAWS(CHH)-2019-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
MURALILAL VISHWAKARMA VS. MEENA SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD VS. RAM PRAKASH SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANTI EVASION COMMERCIAL TAXES BHARATPUR VS. AMTEK INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING VS. CBI [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA ANTHARAM TIJORIWALA AND GUJRATHI VS. TAKHATMAL SHRIVALLABH CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SAMIR MAJUMDAR VS. EXXON MOBILE CO. INDIA (P) LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-352] [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ANAND AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-243] [REFERRED TO]
MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN VS. MAHALAXMI MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-11-246] [REFERRED TO]
ZILE SINGH VS. AVTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
BANSAL COMMODITIES VS. RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. PAMELA MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-351] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. THROUGH MANOJKUMAR JAMNADAS (EXE.ENG.) VS. KADVANI FORGE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-212] [REFERRED TO]
BALA BAKSH VS. MAGAN LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MS.BHARATI ADHIK PATIL & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
MARANNA MADAPPA VS. THIPPE RANGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
MANIRAM TAMRAKAR VS. KUNJ BIHARI GAHAWAI [LAWS(CHH)-2013-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. LAXMIKANT D NAIK KARMALI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-209] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR GOVINDRAO KINKHEDE VS. MANJUDEVI VINODKUMAR CHHAWCHHARIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. DWARKA DAS [LAWS(MPH)-2005-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
SRIBASH CHANDRA SAHA VS. RUBBER BOARD [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
BAHAR MURTAZA FAZAL ALI VS. ROHINI WAHI ALIAS ROOHANI [LAWS(HPH)-2019-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
B. GHOSE & COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. SATISH MATHUR [LAWS(DLH)-2021-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
FORESHORE CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. PRAVEEN DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-102] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD GHAYASULLA VS. H ASADULLA SHARIFF [LAWS(KAR)-2010-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH VS. RAM JEE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-267] [REFERRED TO]
KARIYAPPA VS. HANUMANTHAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)This appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment dated 3-2-1992 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 2040 of 1987 allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs who are respondents herein on reversing judgment of the first appellate Court confirming the decision of the trial Court.
(2.)On analysis of the case of the parties and findings recorded by the Courts below the question that arises for determination is whether on the facts found the plaintiffs are entitled to exclusion of the period from 21-3-1980 to 15-2-1982 under S. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computation of the period of limitation for filing the suit. The facts relevant for determination of the question, sans unnecessary details may be stated thus :
(3.)The appellant-Deena (deceased represented by legal heirs) had mortgaged his land measuring 9 bighas 18 biswas (after consolidation 47 kanals 13 marlas) in Khewat No. 39, Khasra No. 34 situated in the village Manakwas, Tehsil Jhajjar in the State of Haryana, for Rs. 2,500/- with possession, on 7-2-1947 with plaintiff No. 2 and father of plaintiff Nos. 15 to 19 and Khubi Ram alias Khushi Ram who is the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs 2 to 14. On 23-6-1978 Deena had filed an application for redemption of the land before Collector, Jhajjar which was accepted on 29-2-1980 and the land was ordered to be redeemed on payment of the mortgage money Rupees 2,500/-. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Jhajjar titled Harkishan vs. Deena, seeking a declaration that they had become owners of the property and that the order of the Collector dated 29-2-1980 was null and void. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree was challenged in appeal by the defendant. During pendency of the appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Rohtak the plaintiffs withdrew the suit with permission to file fresh suit. Thereafter the present suit, Civil Suit No. 115/82 was filed on 24-2-1982 seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit property and that the order passed by the Collector was void and inoperative and did not affect their rights. In his written statement the defendant took the plea, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation.
(2.)On analysis of the case of the parties and findings recorded by the Courts below the question that arises for determination is whether on the facts found the plaintiffs are entitled to exclusion of the period from 21-3-1980 to 15-2-1982 under S. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computation of the period of limitation for filing the suit. The facts relevant for determination of the question, sans unnecessary details may be stated thus :
(3.)The appellant-Deena (deceased represented by legal heirs) had mortgaged his land measuring 9 bighas 18 biswas (after consolidation 47 kanals 13 marlas) in Khewat No. 39, Khasra No. 34 situated in the village Manakwas, Tehsil Jhajjar in the State of Haryana, for Rs. 2,500/- with possession, on 7-2-1947 with plaintiff No. 2 and father of plaintiff Nos. 15 to 19 and Khubi Ram alias Khushi Ram who is the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs 2 to 14. On 23-6-1978 Deena had filed an application for redemption of the land before Collector, Jhajjar which was accepted on 29-2-1980 and the land was ordered to be redeemed on payment of the mortgage money Rupees 2,500/-. The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Jhajjar titled Harkishan vs. Deena, seeking a declaration that they had become owners of the property and that the order of the Collector dated 29-2-1980 was null and void. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the decree was challenged in appeal by the defendant. During pendency of the appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Rohtak the plaintiffs withdrew the suit with permission to file fresh suit. Thereafter the present suit, Civil Suit No. 115/82 was filed on 24-2-1982 seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit property and that the order passed by the Collector was void and inoperative and did not affect their rights. In his written statement the defendant took the plea, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.