HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE defendant No. 1 is in second appeal aggrieved from the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 are owners in possession of the land measuring 298 kanals 6 marlas, was decreed.
(2.) THE said declaration has been sought alleging therein that one Gopal has six sons namely Chet Ram, Ami Lal, Umra, Madho, Rameshwar and India. India died and his son Balbir Singh is plaintiff No. 4. One Dhan Kaur was married to Ami Lal son of Gopal. Said Ami Lal died 27-28 years ago. As per the plaintiffs, Dhan Kaur widow of Ami Lal contracted karewa with Chet Ram son of Gopal soon after the mutation of inheritance of Ami Lal was sanctioned in her favour. It is thus alleged that she has forfeited her right to succeed to the property of Ami Lal. Thus, the plaintiffs sought declaration to the effect that Ami Lal's estate will be inherited by the plaintiffs and Chet Ram who has been impleaded as defendant No. 2. It was also pleaded that Dhan Kaur has given birth to 5 children from the loins of Chet Ram and, therefore, Dhan Kaur cannot claim any right, title or interest in the estate of Ami Lal. It was defendant No. 1 who contested the suit and alleged that the suit is time barred and that she has been residing in the house of Ami Lal. She denied having contracted karewa with Chet Ram and thus, sought dismissal of the suit. In order to prove the issues framed, the plaintiff No. 3 examined himself as PW-1. PW-2 Sukh Ram is brother-in-law of Rameshwar-plaintiff. PW-3 Munga and PW-4 Balbir have deposed in respect of karewa of Dhan Kaur with Chet Ram. On the other hand, Dhan Kaur examined herself as DW-1 and examined Chet Ram as DW-4. DW-2 Har Sarup, DW-3 Daya Nand, and DW-5 Umed Singh have deposed that Dhan Kaur never contracted karewa with Chet Ram.
(3.) THE learned trial Court found that after the death of Ami Lal, it was in the year 1951, the property was mutated in the name of Dhan Kaur. Dhan Kaur became absolute owner of the property after coming in to force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was held that the suit is barred as mutation in favour of Dhan Kaur was sanctioned immediately after the death of Ami Lal, whereas the suit has been filed on 7.8.1979 which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 100 of the Limitation Act. In view of the said finding, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.;