- (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 : "Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run. 102. For Property which the plaintiff has conveyed while insance Three years When the plaintiff is restored to sanity and has knowledge of the conveyance". A reading of the above clearly shows that this Article would apply with regard to property of an insane person when his sanity is restored and has knowledge of the conveyance and file a suit. On those facts, the period of three years will apply under this Article and if these are not the facts then this Article will not apply. Admittedly, Jiwa Singh did not gain sanity during his life time and is not the plaintiff. The first part of Article 102 of the Act specifically says that, when the suit is brought by a plaintiff with regard to property which he conveyed while insane. The plaintiffs before me are the legal representatives. If the suit had been brought by Jiwa Singh beyond three years of his regaining sanity and getting knowledge of the conveyance, then certainly this Article would have applied and the suit would have been time barred. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents stressed that the aforesaid Article should be read with Section 6 of the Act. What Section 6 of the Act provides is special period of limitation to persons having legal disability. In their cases the limitation is extended. Special reference has been made to sub-section (3) and on reading of the same, it is pointed out by the learned counsel of the defendant-respondent that it should be read with Article 102 of the Act. What sub-section (3) conveys is that the same limitation would be applicable in favour of the legal representatives of a legally disabled person in case the disability continues till the date of death, but it has no reference to Article 102 of the Act. The word 'time' so specified in Section 6(3) has reference to all the Articles of the Limitation Act which may be applicable in a given case and not only to Article 102 of the Act. As already noticed, Article 102 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the given case. Then question arises which Article is applicable
(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.;