Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below where suit for declaration filed by plaintiff Lila Krishan, who died during the pendency of the suit, seeking declaration to the effect that mutation entered in favour of defendant No. 1 was not legally sustainable.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts, as noticed in the judgments of the Courts below, are that Kewal Ram, who died in 1950, had a wife, namely Gobindi Bai, who died during partition. Thereafter, he entered into second marriage with Veeran Bai. From the first marriage with Gobindi Bai, there were three issues, namely, Lila Krishan, Jhangi Ram and Vasandhi Bai whereas from the second wife Veeran Bai, there were three issues, namely, Narain Dass, Parmeshwari Devi and Kishani Bai. After the death of Kewal Ram, his property was inherited by his three sons, namely, Lila Krishan, Jhangi Ram and Narain Dass. Jhangi Ram was issue less. After his death, his entire property was inherited by his widow Sita Bai. However, she died intestate. Her property reverted back to other legal heirs and it is the starting point of the dispute in the present litigation. After the death of Sita Bai, mutation was entered on July 6, 1982 in favour of brothers and sisters of deceased Jhangi Ram in equal share i.e. 1/5% each. It is this mutation, which is sought to be challenged by plaintiff Lila Krishan alleging that to be illegal and contrary to the law of inheritance. The claim was that after the death of Jhangi Ram, the property will devolve upon the respondent/plaintiff and his sister Vasandhi Bai, who were born out to Gobindi Bai alongwith deceased Jhangi Ram. Both the courts below accepted the claim made by plaintiff Lila Krishan and decreed the suit.
(3.) BEFORE this Court, learned Counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. Firstly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred and secondly that admission, even if made by the appellant/defendant No. 1, in earlier suit filed by him to the effect that Kewal Ram entered into two marriages could very well be explained by him and that admission should not have been taken against him. He submitted that earlier litigation filed by him was at the instance of plaintiff and now the same is being taken against him. As regards the plea of limitation, he submitted that when the mutation was entered presence of plaintiff is shown, which means that he had no objection to the mutation being sanctioned and accordingly, he had no locus standi to file the present suit belatedly.;