- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohinder Singh (Deceased By Lrs) And Another v. Kashmira Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from a suit for possession filed by Kashmira Singh claiming a one-third share of land inherited from Niranjan Singh, who died in 1949. Mutation of the inheritance in favour of the appellants was sanctioned in 1956. Kashmira Singh filed suit in 1969 for possession of his share of the land. The appellants contested the suit, denying the respondent's status as Niranjan Singh's son and claiming absolute title by prescription, as well as asserting the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court held that the respondent was the son of Niranjan Singh and dismissed the limitation and adverse possession defenses, granting the suit. The District Judge affirmed these findings on appeal. The appellants then filed the present appeal, focusing on the limitation issue.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is there any prescribed period under the law of limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance?
- Whether a suit for possession based on inheritance must be filed within twelve years from the date of death of the last male holder?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The plaintiff (respondent) was required to file a suit for possession based on inheritance within twelve years from the death of Niranjan Singh, the last male holder.
- Failure to do so barred the suit under the law of limitation.
Respondent's Arguments
- No specific period is prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance.
- A suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a twelve-year limitation period starting from when the defendant's possession becomes adverse.
- Inheritance vests ownership immediately upon the death of the last male holder; thus, no suit is required to establish ownership by inheritance.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Naginder Singh v. Chanan Singh, 1983 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 432 | Whether a suit for possession on the ground of inheritance must be filed within twelve years from the date when inheritance opens. | The court found that the view in this precedent was incorrect in holding that a limitation period applies from the date inheritance opens. The court held that no such limitation period is prescribed for suits based solely on inheritance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the legal question of whether a limitation period applies to suits for possession based purely on inheritance. It recognized the principle that inheritance vests ownership immediately upon the death of the last male holder, and thus heirs do not need to file suit to establish ownership. The court distinguished between establishing ownership by inheritance, which requires no suit, and suits for possession where the heir is not in possession and must assert title against an adverse possessor, which are governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The court rejected the precedent set by R.N. Mittal, J. in Naginder Singh's case, which suggested a twelve-year limitation period from the date inheritance opens, finding that the cited decisions in that case actually upheld adverse possession rather than imposing a limitation on inheritance claims. Therefore, the court concluded that no limitation period applies to suits for possession based solely on inheritance.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The court held that no period of limitation is prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance. The direct consequence is that heirs are not barred by limitation from asserting possession rights inherited from a deceased. No new precedent beyond this clarification was established, and the decision primarily affects the parties by upholding the respondent's claim to possession without limitation constraints.
Prem Chand Jain, A.C.J:— Is there any period prescribed under the law of limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance, is the question of law involved in this appeal?
2. One Niranjan Singh died in 1949 leaving behind 309 Kanals 1 Marla of land and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the appellants on 15th February, 1956. Kashmira Singh respondent, claiming himself to be the son of Niranjan Singh from his second wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur, filed a suit for possession of his 1/3rd share measuring 103 Kanals and 1 Marla of land on 12th June, 1969. The suit was contested by the appellants inter alia on the grounds that the respondent was not the son of Niranjan Singh. In the alternative, the appellants claimed absolute title by prescription. They also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court after recording evidence held that the plaintiff-respondent was the son of Niranjan Singh. The issues of limitation as well as of adverse possession were also decided against the appellants. Consequently, the suit was decreed as prayed for. On appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the learned District Judge. Still dissatisfied, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants.
3. When the appeal come up for hearing before S.P Goyal, J., the only question debated was that the suit was barred by limitation and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on a recent judgment of R.N Mittal, J., in Naginder Singh v. Chanan Singh, 1983 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 432. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge found that the decision in Naginder Singh's case (supra) needed reconsideration. Consequently, the matter was referred to be decided by a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.
4. The only contention raised before us by Mr. G.R Majithia, learned Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, was that the plaintiff after the death of Niranjan Singh was required to file a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance within twelve years of the date of death of the last male holder failing which he was not entitled to a decree for possession as prayed for by him.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no period was prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance and that a suit for possession on the basis of title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the relevant portion of which reads as under:—
“Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 65. For possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title Twelve years When the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.” .......... ..........
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is well established principle of law that inheritance does not remain in abeyance and the heirs after the death of the last male holder succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Kashmira Singh, being the son of Niranjan Singh deceased, was entitled to 1/3rd share in the land in dispute. After the death of Niranjan Singh, he was not required to file any suit for possession on the basis of inheritance. He had become full owner of his share in the property on the death of the last male holder. For establishing his right as an heir, he was not required to file a suit. However, a situation may arise when the heir is not in possession of the property inherited. In that event a suit for possession may have to be filed and on contest the same may fail on the defendant proving that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. It is such type of suit which is governed by the provisions of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. In this view of the matter, with respect, I find that the view taken by R.N Mittal, J. in Naginder Singh's case (1983 Cur LJ (Civ and Cri) 432) (supra) that it is well settled that a suit for possession on the ground of inheritance should be filed within a period of twelve years from the date when the inheritance opens, does not lay down correct law. The decisions to which reference has been made in para 9 of the judgment by the learned Judge, do not lay down any such rule. On the other hand, in all those decisions it was adverse possession of the defendants which was upheld. Thus I hold that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a suit for possession on the basis of inheritance.
7. No other point arises for consideration. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert