Kitabo Devi and Others Kitabo Devi and Others v. and Others Shanti Devi and Others
Case Details
RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-218-2017 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-03.09.2025 Date of Decision : 05.09.2025 Date of Decision : Kitabo Devi and Others Kitabo Devi and Others ....Appellants VERSUS and Others Shanti Devi and Others ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the appellants. for the appellants. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondents No.4 to 10 proceed ex-pare. Respondents No.4 to 10 proceed ex Respondents No.4 to 10 proceed ex -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. Present RSA has been filed by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 5, Present RSA has been filed by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 5, Present RSA has been filed by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 5, Present RSA has been filed by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 5, of Jage Ram, against namely Kitabo Devi and others, who are the legal heirs of Jage Ram, against namely Kitabo Devi and others, who are the legal namely Kitabo Devi and others, who are the legal dants No. 6 to 12), challenging the Shanti Devi and others (plaintiffs and defendants No. 6 to 12), challenging the dants No. 6 to 12), challenging the Shanti Devi and others (plaintiffs and defen judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Lower Appellate judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Lower Appellate judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Lower Appellate judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Brief Facts 2. Dhapan, The plaintiffs, namely Shanti Devi, Chhotan Devi, and Dhapan The plaintiffs, namely Shanti Devi, Chhota The plaintiffs, namely Shanti Devi, Chhota daughters of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, instituted a suit against the legal representatives , instituted a suit against the legal representatives , sons of of Jage Ram, the legal representatives of Ran Singh, and Ram Kishan, sons of of Jage Ram, the legal representatives of Ran of Jage Ram, the legal representatives of Ran Sukha @ Sukhi Ram. The brief facts, as set out in the plaint, are that Sukha @ Sukhi Ram Sukha @ . The brief facts, as set out in the plaint, are that Sukha @
Legal Reasoning
s, namely, had three daughters, i.e., the present plaintiffs, and three sons, namely, had three daughters, i.e., the present plaintiffs, and three son Sukhi Ram had three daughters, i.e., the present plaintiffs, and three son TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -2- - Ram Kishan (defendant No. 12), Ran Singh (since deceased) Ram Kishan (defendant No. 12), Ran S now represented by since deceased) now represented by defendants No. 6 to 11), and Jage Ram (predeceased defendants No. 6 to 11), and Jage Ram represented by defendants predeceased) represented by defendants No. 1 to 5). 3. It was pleaded that Sukha @ Sukhi Ram It was pleaded that , father of the plaintiffs and Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, father of the plaintiffs and defendants Ram Kishan, Ran S ingh, and Jage Ram, was the owner in possession of Ram Kishan, Ran Singh, and Jage Ram, was the owner in possession of ingh, and Jage Ram, was the owner in possession of 19 years prior to the institution of the suit. Upon the suit land. He died about 18–19 years prior to the institution of the suit. Upon 19 years prior to the institution of the suit. Upon the suit land. He died about 18 his death, the plaintiffs along with their three brothers succeeded to the estate and his death, the plaintiffs along with their three brothers succeeded to the estate and his death, the plaintiffs along with their three brothers succeeded to the estate and his death, the plaintiffs along with their three brothers succeeded to the estate and s in possession of the suit land in equal shares. The case of the became owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares. The case of the s in possession of the suit land in equal shares. The case of the s in possession of the suit land in equal shares. The case of the plaintiffs is that being married in different villages, they occasionally used to visit plaintiffs is that being married in different villages, they occasionally used to visit plaintiffs is that being married in different villages, they occasionally used to visit plaintiffs is that being married in different villages, they occasionally used to visit their parental house for the purpose of collecting rent of their share from the their parental house for the purpose of collecting rent of their share from the their parental house for the purpose of collecting rent of their share from the their parental house for the purpose of collecting rent of their share from the ever, in the year 2008, when the defendants refused to pay agricultural land. However, in the year 2008, when the defendants refused to pay ever, in the year 2008, when the defendants refused to pay agricultural land. How them the rent, they approached the Halqa Patwari and came to know that the them the rent, they approached the Halqa Patwari and came to know that the them the rent, they approached the Halqa Patwari and came to know that the them the rent, they approached the Halqa Patwari and came to know that the mutation of inheritance of their father Sukha @ Sukhi Ram mutation of inheritance of their father had been sanctioned Sukha @ Sukhi Ram had been sanctioned her heirs to the exclusion of the and attested exclusively in favour of the other heirs to the exclusion of the her heirs to the exclusion of the and attested exclusively in favour of the ot plaintiffs. 4. also, the It was further pleaded that after the death of Ran Singh also, the It was further pleaded that after the death of It was further pleaded that after the death of mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal representatives, mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal representatives, mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal representatives, mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal representatives, are of the plaintiffs. i.e., defendants No. 6 to 11, without recognizing the share of the plaintiffs. i.e., defendants No. 6 to 11, without recognizing the sh i.e., defendants No. 6 to 11, without recognizing the sh According to the plaintiffs, both these mutations are wrong, illegal, and against law According to the plaintiffs, both these mutations are wrong, illegal, and against law According to the plaintiffs, both these mutations are wrong, illegal, and against law According to the plaintiffs, both these mutations are wrong, illegal, and against law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs accordingly sought a decree for and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs accordingly sought a decree for and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs accordingly sought a decree for and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs accordingly sought a decree for of the suit land in equal declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land in equal declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession 2005. In the alternative, it shares as reflected in the Jamabandi for the years 2004–2005. In the alternative, it shares as reflected in the Jamabandi for the years 2004 shares as reflected in the Jamabandi for the years 2004 was prayed that in case they are found to be out of possession or are dispossessed was prayed that in case they are found to be out of possession or are dispossessed was prayed that in case they are found to be out of possession or are dispossessed was prayed that in case they are found to be out of possession or are dispossessed or joint possession. during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit be decreed for joint possession. during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit be decreed f during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit be decreed f TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -3- - 5. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5, being the legal representatives of Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5, being the legal representatives of Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5, being the legal representatives of Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5, being the legal representatives of Jage Ram, and defendant No. 12, Ram Kishan Jage Ram, and defendant No. 12, , appeared and contested the suit. Ram Kishan, appeared and contested the suit. Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement, while defendant No. 12 filed Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement, while defendant No. 12 filed Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement, while defendant No. 12 filed Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement, while defendant No. 12 filed his separate written statement. In both sets of written statements, preliminary his separate written statement. In both sets of written statements, preliminary his separate written statement. In both sets of written statements, preliminary his separate written statement. In both sets of written statements, preliminary ility, and other technical objections were raised regarding locus standi, maintainability, and other technical objections were raised regarding locus standi, maintainab objections were raised regarding locus standi, maintainab grounds. On merits, the defendants categorically denied the relationship claimed grounds. On merits, the defendants categorically denied the relationship claimed grounds. On merits, the defendants categorically denied the relationship claimed grounds. On merits, the defendants categorically denied the relationship claimed by the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the daughters by the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the daughters by the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the daughters by the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the daughters of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, who had only three sons, namely, Ram , who had only three sons, namely, Ran Singh, Ram , and Jage Ram. On this basis, the defendants asserted that after the death of Kishan, and Jage Ram. On this basis, the defendants asserted that after the death of , and Jage Ram. On this basis, the defendants asserted that after the death of , and Jage Ram. On this basis, the defendants asserted that after the death of , they alone became owners in possession of his movable and Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, they alone became owners in possession of his movable and , they alone became owners in possession of his movable and Sukha @ Sukhi Ram immovable property, and that the mutations of inheritance were rightly entered and immovable property, and that the mutations of inheritance were rightly entered and immovable property, and that the mutations of inheritance were rightly entered and immovable property, and that the mutations of inheritance were rightly entered and attested in their favour. attested in their favour. 6. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements of the The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements of the The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements of the The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements of the defendants, wherein they reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied defendants, wherein they reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied defendants, wherein they reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied defendants, wherein they reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied those in the written statements. those in the written statements. 7. owing issues were framed From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed From the pleadings of the parties, the foll From the pleadings of the parties, the foll for adjudication: for adjudication: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit property in equal shares? OPP in equal shares? OPP 2. Whether mutation of inheritance of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram Whether mutation of inheritance of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram bearing No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, and mutation regarding inheritance bearing No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, and mutation regarding inheritance bearing No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, and mutation regarding inheritance bearing No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, and mutation regarding inheritance of Ran Singh, son of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram of 23 dated Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, bearing No. 423 dated liable 04.09.2003, are illegal, wrong, null and void ab-initio and thus liable 04.09.2003, are illegal, wrong, null and void 04.09.2003, are illegal, wrong, null and void to be set aside? OPP to be set aside? OPP TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -4- - 3. If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled th alternative relief of possession as to a decree of declaration with alternative relief of possession as th alternative relief of possession as to a decree of declaration wi prayed for? OPP prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and have concealed true and material facts from the Court? hands and have concealed true and material facts from the Court? hands and have concealed true and material facts from the Court? hands and have concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD OPD 7. Whether the present suit is hopelessly time Whether the present suit is hopelessly time-barred? OPD 8. Relief. 8. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 9. ng the pleadings and evidence and hearing learned After appreciating the pleadings and evidence and hearing learned ng the pleadings and evidence and hearing learned After appreciati counsel for the parties, the learned trial court returned a finding that the cause of counsel for the parties, the learned trial court returned a finding that the cause of counsel for the parties, the learned trial court returned a finding that the cause of counsel for the parties, the learned trial court returned a finding that the cause of Sukha @ Sukhi action, if any, accrued to the plaintiffs either on 20.06.1991, when Sukha @ Sukhi action, if any, accrued to the plaintiffs either on 20.06.1991, when action, if any, accrued to the plaintiffs either on 20.06.1991, when Sukha @ Sukhi died, or on 21.07.1995, when the mutation of inheritance of Sukha @ Sukhi died, or on 21.07.1995, when the mutation of inheritance of Ram died, or on 21.07.1995, when the mutation of inheritance of was entered and attested, whereas the present suit has not been filed within a Ram was entered and attested, whereas the present suit has not been filed within a was entered and attested, whereas the present suit has not been filed within a was entered and attested, whereas the present suit has not been filed within a period of limitation, that is, three years from the date on which cause of action had period of limitation, that is, three years from the date on which cause of action had period of limitation, that is, three years from the date on which cause of action had period of limitation, that is, three years from the date on which cause of action had arisen. 10. It was further observed that the law regarding limitation is clear, and It was further observed that the law regarding limitation is clear, and It was further observed that the law regarding limitation is clear, and It was further observed that the law regarding limitation is clear, and the Court should be vigilant enough to check the limitation on the suit, as no relief the Court should be vigilant enough to check the limitation on the suit, as no relief the Court should be vigilant enough to check the limitation on the suit, as no relief the Court should be vigilant enough to check the limitation on the suit, as no relief can be given to a person who has approached the Court beyond the prescribed can be given to a person who has approached the Court beyond the prescribed can be given to a person who has approached the Court beyond the prescribed can be given to a person who has approached the Court beyond the prescribed TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -5- - Accordingly, considering the suit to be barred by limitation, it period of limitation. Accordingly, considering the suit to be barred by limitation, it Accordingly, considering the suit to be barred by limitation, it period of limitation. was dismissed on that ground. was dismissed on that ground. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the ourt, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. ourt, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower 12. The learned Lower Appellate Court The learned decreed the suit of the plaintiffs Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, holding that the by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, holding that the by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, holding that the by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, holding that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit. Therefore, t suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit. Therefore, t suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit. Therefore, t plaintiffs have a continuing cause of action to file the suit as and when their rights plaintiffs have a continuing cause of action to file the suit as and when their rights plaintiffs have a continuing cause of action to file the suit as and when their rights plaintiffs have a continuing cause of action to file the suit as and when their rights are threatened. 13. It was further observed that the plaintiffs were claiming declaration It was further observed that the plaintiffs were claiming declaration It was further observed that the plaintiffs were claiming declaration It was further observed that the plaintiffs were claiming declaration being in possession as co-sharers, and the basis for such declaration was a being in possession as co pre- sharers, and the basis for such declaration was a pre Sukha existing right in the suit land on the ground of inheritance of the property of Sukha existing right in the suit land on the ground of inheritance of the property of existing right in the suit land on the ground of inheritance of the property of Sukha @ , their father, by challenging the mutation of inheritance of Sukha @ , their father, by challenging the mutation of inheritance of @ Sukhi Ram, their father, by challenging the mutation of inheritance of . It was further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the Sukhi Ram. It was further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the . It was further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the . It was further observed that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs had ever approached the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation of plaintiffs had ever approached the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation of plaintiffs had ever approached the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation of plaintiffs had ever approached the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation of their father after his death, and it is not even the case of the defendants that any of their father after his death, and it is not even the case of the defendants that any of their father after his death, and it is not even the case of the defendants that any of their father after his death, and it is not even the case of the defendants that any of the plaintiffs were present at the time of attestation of mutation. Thus, the point of the plaintiffs were present at the time of attestation of mutation. Thus, the point o the plaintiffs were present at the time of attestation of mutation. Thus, the point o the plaintiffs were present at the time of attestation of mutation. Thus, the point o limitation stood determined against the defendants. limitation stood determined against the defendants. limitation stood determined against the defendants. 14. The learned Lower Appellate Court The relied upon various judgments, Lower Appellate Court relied upon various judgments, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ibrahim @ Dharamv a Division Bench judgment of this Court in including a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ibrahim @ Dharamvir
Legal Reasoning
held that there is no versus Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti reported in 1979 PLJ 469 and held that there is no versus Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti reported in 1979 PLJ 469 versus Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti reported in 1979 PLJ 469 limitation for filing a suit on the basis of inheritance. limitation for filing a suit on the basis of inheritance. limitation for filing a suit on the basis of inheritance. 15. Accordingly, the point of limitation was decided against the Accordingly, the point of limitation was decided against the Accordingly, the point of limitation was decided against the Accordingly, the point of limitation was decided against the defendants, and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are defendants, and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are defendants, and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are defendants, and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -6- - ual shares of the land as reflected in the Jamabandi for owners in possession in equal shares of the land as reflected in the Jamabandi for ual shares of the land as reflected in the Jamabandi for owners in possession in eq Sukha 95. It was further declared that the mutation of inheritance of Sukha 95. It was further declared that the mutation of inheritance of the year 1994–95. It was further declared that the mutation of inheritance of Ran as well as the mutation of inheritance regarding the share of Ran as well as the mutation of inheritance regarding the share of @ Sukhi Ram as well as the mutation of inheritance regarding the share of Singh are wrong, illegal, void, and l iable to be set aside as not binding upon the are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set aside as not binding upon the iable to be set aside as not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. rights of the plaintiffs. 16. Lower Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by the learned Lower Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by the Feeling aggrieved by the above order passed by the Appellate Court, the present appeal has been filed by Appellate Court defendants Kitabo , the present appeal has been filed by appellants/defendants Kitabo Jage Ram s/o Sukha @ Sukhi Ram. Devi and others, legal heirs of Jage Ram s/o Sukha @ Sukhi Ram. Devi and others, legal the Appellants Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellants Submissions of Learned Counsel 17. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No. 1 to It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No. 1 to It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No. 1 to It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No. 1 to learned 5 that the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned 5 that the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the 5 that the impugned judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 passed by the against facts, contrary to law, illegal, void, and deserves to be Appellate Court is against facts, contrary to law, illegal, void, and deserves to be against facts, contrary to law, illegal, void, and deserves to be Appellate Court set aside. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court set aside. It is submitted that the failed to appreciate that learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the present suit was filed beyond the period of limitation of three years after the the present suit was filed beyond the period of limitation of three years after the the present suit was filed beyond the period of limitation of three years after the the present suit was filed beyond the period of limitation of three years after the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs, i.e., on the death of their father cause of action aro Sukha @ se to the plaintiffs, i.e., on the death of their father Sukha @ Sukha @ as well as the date on which the mutation of inheritance of Sukha @ as well as the date on which the mutation of inheritance of Sukhi Ram as well as the date on which the mutation of inheritance of 5, counsel submitted was entered and attested. Referring to Exhibit P-5, counsel submitted was entered and attested. Referring to Exhibit P Sukhi Ram was entered and attested. Referring to Exhibit P that Sukha @ Sukhi Ram died on 20.06.1991 and the mutation of inheritance was Sukha @ Sukhi Ram died on 20.06.1991 and the mutation of inheritance was died on 20.06.1991 and the mutation of inheritance was entered and attested on 21.07.1995, whereas the suit was filed much after the cause entered and attested on 21.07.1995, whereas the suit was filed much after the cause entered and attested on 21.07.1995, whereas the suit was filed much after the cause entered and attested on 21.07.1995, whereas the suit was filed much after the cause of action. 18. It was further argued that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs used It was further argued that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs used It was further argued that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs used It was further argued that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs used ouse for collecting rent of their share. This clearly shows to visit their parental house for collecting rent of their share. This clearly shows ouse for collecting rent of their share. This clearly shows to visit their parental h that they had knowledge of the death of their father as well as of the mutation in that they had knowledge of the death of their father as well as of the mutation in that they had knowledge of the death of their father as well as of the mutation in that they had knowledge of the death of their father as well as of the mutation in favour of the sons. Despite this knowledge, they did not file the suit within the favour of the sons. Despite this knowledge, they did not file the suit within the favour of the sons. Despite this knowledge, they did not file the suit within the favour of the sons. Despite this knowledge, they did not file the suit within the contended that the plaintiffs never remained in prescribed period. It was next contended that the plaintiffs never remained in contended that the plaintiffs never remained in prescribed period. It was next TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -7- - possession and that they have not sought the relief of possession. Had they sought possession and that they have not sought the relief of possession. Had they sought possession and that they have not sought the relief of possession. Had they sought possession and that they have not sought the relief of possession. Had they sought possession, the suit filed within 12 years would have been within limitation. possession, the suit filed within 12 years would have been within limitation. possession, the suit filed within 12 years would have been within limitation. possession, the suit filed within 12 years would have been within limitation. ration to the effect that they are However, since the plaintiffs sought only declaration to the effect that they are However, since the plaintiffs sought only decla However, since the plaintiffs sought only decla owners in possession, the limitation of three years applies, and thus, the learned owners in possession, the limitation of three years applies, and thus, the learned owners in possession, the limitation of three years applies, and thus, the learned owners in possession, the limitation of three years applies, and thus, the learned trial court rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. The findings of the trial court rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. The findings of the trial court rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. The findings of the trial court rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation. The findings of the learned Lower A Appellate Court, therefore, are pervers e and liable to be set aside. ourt, therefore, are perverse and liable to be set aside. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Submissions of Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Submissions of Learned Counsel 19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has argued that there is no illegality in the well- argued that there is no illegality in the well reasoned judgment passed by the -reasoned judgment passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court . It was contended that in matters of inheritance, no Appellate Court. It was contended that in matters of inheritance, no . It was contended that in matters of inheritance, no period of limitation is prescribed, as inheritance never remains in abeyance and period of limitation is prescribed, as inheritance never remains in abeyance and period of limitation is prescribed, as inheritance never remains in abeyance and period of limitation is prescribed, as inheritance never remains in abeyance and heirs succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Mutation heirs succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Mutation heirs succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Mutation heirs succeed to the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Mutation , and the mere fact that the same were entered in favour of entries do not confer title, and the mere fact that the same were entered in favour of , and the mere fact that the same were entered in favour of entries do not confer title the sons excluding the daughters cannot deny the right of inheritance to the the sons excluding the daughters cannot deny the right of inheritance to the the sons excluding the daughters cannot deny the right of inheritance to the the sons excluding the daughters cannot deny the right of inheritance to the daughters. It was urged that the suit cannot be held to be time-barred. daughters. It was urged that the suit cannot be held to be time daughters. It was urged that the suit cannot be held to be time 20. the respondents relied upon In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents relied upon In support of his contentions, counsel for In support of his contentions, counsel for Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another Vs. Kashmira Singh, Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another Vs. Kashmira Singh Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another Vs. Kashmira Singh Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another Vs. Kashmira Singh , wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that AIR 1985 Punjab 215, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that , wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that AIR 1985 Punjab 215 inheritance does not remain in abeyance and that heirs succeed to the property inheritance does not remain in abeyance and that heirs succeed to the property inheritance does not remain in abeyance and that heirs succeed to the property inheritance does not remain in abeyance and that heirs succeed to the property diately upon the death of the last male holder, and that no limitation is immediately upon the death of the last male holder, and that no limitation is diately upon the death of the last male holder, and that no limitation is diately upon the death of the last male holder, and that no limitation is prescribed for filing a suit for possession based on inheritance. prescribed for filing a suit for possession based on inheritance. prescribed for filing a suit for possession based on inheritance. Findings of This Court Findings of This Court 21. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the fully perused the record. The sole question that arises for parties and have carefully perused the record. The sole question that arises for fully perused the record. The sole question that arises for parties and have care TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -8- - consideration is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was barred by consideration is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was barred by consideration is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was barred by consideration is whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. 22. It is a settled principle of law that in matters relating to inheritance, no It is a settled principle of law that in matters relating to inheritance, no It is a settled principle of law that in matters relating to inheritance, no It is a settled principle of law that in matters relating to inheritance, no rescribed for seeking possession of property on the basis of period of limitation is prescribed for seeking possession of property on the basis of rescribed for seeking possession of property on the basis of period of limitation is p succession. The rights of heirs arise immediately upon the death of the last male succession. The rights of heirs arise immediately upon the death of the last male succession. The rights of heirs arise immediately upon the death of the last male succession. The rights of heirs arise immediately upon the death of the last male holder, and such rights cannot be defeated merely on the ground that mutation was holder, and such rights cannot be defeated merely on the ground that mutation was holder, and such rights cannot be defeated merely on the ground that mutation was holder, and such rights cannot be defeated merely on the ground that mutation was irs excluding others. Mutation is only a fiscal entry sanctioned in favour of some heirs excluding others. Mutation is only a fiscal entry irs excluding others. Mutation is only a fiscal entry sanctioned in favour of some he for revenue purposes and does not create or extinguish title. for revenue purposes and does not create or extinguish title. for revenue purposes and does not create or extinguish title. 23. The Learned Lower Appellate Court The was correct in relying on the Learned Lower Appellate Court was correct in relying on the principle that where a plaintiff bases his or her claim on inheritance, there exists a principle that where a plaintiff bases his or her claim on inheritance, there exists a principle that where a plaintiff bases his or her claim on inheritance, there exists a principle that where a plaintiff bases his or her claim on inheritance, there exists a Mohinder continuing cause of action so long as their right is denied. In the case of Mohinder continuing cause of action so long as their right is denied. In continuing cause of action so long as their right is denied. In a Division Bench of this Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another (supra), a Division Bench of this Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another (supra) Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another (supra) Court categorically held that no limitation is prescribed for a suit for possession Court categorically held that no limitation is prescribed for a suit for possession Court categorically held that no limitation is prescribed for a suit for possession Court categorically held that no limitation is prescribed for a suit for possession based upon inheritance. This view was also affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this based upon inheritance. This view was also affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this based upon inheritance. This view was also affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this based upon inheritance. This view was also affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ganpat and another versus Ganpat and another versus Lachhman RCR (Civil) Lachhman and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) , wherein it was held that there is no limitation for a suit for possession based on 9, wherein it was held that there is no limitation for a suit for possession based on , wherein it was held that there is no limitation for a suit for possession based on , wherein it was held that there is no limitation for a suit for possession based on inheritance, and such a suit cannot be dismissed as time-barred. inheritance, and such a suit cannot be dismissed as time inheritance, and such a suit cannot be dismissed as time 24. Balwant Singh versus Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh versus Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 409 Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs, , held that a widow is 3) RCR (Civil) 409, held that a widow is entitled to succeed and become absolute owner under the provisions of the Hindu entitled to succeed and become absolute owner under the provisions of the Hindu entitled to succeed and become absolute owner under the provisions of the Hindu entitled to succeed and become absolute owner under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, and mere sanction of mutation in favour of another person will not Succession Act, and mere sanction of mutation in favour of another person will not Succession Act, and mere sanction of mutation in favour of another person will not Succession Act, and mere sanction of mutation in favour of another person will not or extinguish title in divest her of her right. Mutation entries cannot convey or extinguish title in divest her of her right. Mutation entries can divest her of her right. Mutation entries can the widow must be deemed to have continued in possession and become property, the widow must be deemed to have continued in possession and become the widow must be deemed to have continued in possession and become the widow must be deemed to have continued in possession and become the absolute owner. the absolute owner. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -9- - 25. As regards the cause of action, reference may also be made to the As regards the cause of action, reference may also be made to the As regards the cause of action, reference may also be made to the As regards the cause of action, reference may also be made to the @ Dharamveer versus judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahim @ Dharamveer versus judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti, 1979 PLJ 469, where it was held that Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti, 1979 PLJ 469 entry of , where it was held that mere entry of mutation in the name of a defendant would not mutation in the name of a defendant would cause of action to the not furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration. plaintiff to file a suit for declaration. 26. of succession as t is also pertinent to observe that under the law of succession as It is also pertinent to observe that under the t is also pertinent to observe that under the envisaged in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, the daughters are envisaged in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, the daughters are envisaged in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, the daughters are envisaged in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, the daughters are I heirs, entitled to inherit the estate of their father equally recognized as Class-I heirs, entitled to inherit the estate of their father equally I heirs, entitled to inherit the estate of their father equally recognized as Class of succession is a substantive right, which accrues along with the sons. The right of succession is a substantive right, which accrues of succession is a substantive right, which accrues along with the sons. The right immediately on the death of the last male holder and does not remain in abeyance. immediately on the death of the last male holder and does not remain in abeyance. immediately on the death of the last male holder and does not remain in abeyance. immediately on the death of the last male holder and does not remain in abeyance. Such rights of inheritance flow from statute and not from any subsequent Such rights of inheritance flow from statute and not from any subsequent Such rights of inheritance flow from statute and not from any subsequent Such rights of inheritance flow from statute and not from any subsequent in the revenue record. Mutation is recognition by way of mutation or other entries in the revenue record. Mutation is recognition by way of mutation or other entries recognition by way of mutation or other entries merely a fiscal arrangement for collection of land revenue and cannot curtail or merely a fiscal arrangement for collection of land revenue and cannot curtail or merely a fiscal arrangement for collection of land revenue and cannot curtail or merely a fiscal arrangement for collection of land revenue and cannot curtail or extinguish the vested rights of heirs under succession law. Once the right of extinguish the vested rights of heirs under succession law. Once the right of extinguish the vested rights of heirs under succession law. Once the right of extinguish the vested rights of heirs under succession law. Once the right of tinues to subsist inheritance has crystallized by operation of law, the same continues to subsist inheritance has crystallized by operation of law, the same con inheritance has crystallized by operation of law, the same con unless lawfully divested in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, a unless lawfully divested in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, a unless lawfully divested in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, a unless lawfully divested in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, a daughter’s right to succeed to her father’s property cannot be denied on the daughter’s right to succeed to her father’s property cannot be denied on the daughter’s right to succeed to her father’s property cannot be denied on the daughter’s right to succeed to her father’s property cannot be denied on the technical ground of limitation, as the cause of action in such cases is a recurring technical ground of limitation, as the cause of action in such cases is a recurrin technical ground of limitation, as the cause of action in such cases is a recurrin technical ground of limitation, as the cause of action in such cases is a recurrin one, subsisting so long as her right is denied or threatened. Thus, viewed from the one, subsisting so long as her right is denied or threatened. Thus, viewed from the one, subsisting so long as her right is denied or threatened. Thus, viewed from the one, subsisting so long as her right is denied or threatened. Thus, viewed from the perspective of succession law, the daughters stand on an equal footing with sons, perspective of succession law, the daughters stand on an equal footing with sons, perspective of succession law, the daughters stand on an equal footing with sons, perspective of succession law, the daughters stand on an equal footing with sons, and their claim based on inheritance cannot be defeated merely because the suit is and their claim based on inheritance cannot be defeated merely because the suit is and their claim based on inheritance cannot be defeated merely because the suit is and their claim based on inheritance cannot be defeated merely because the suit is beyond three years from the date of attestation of mutation. filed beyond three years from the date of attestation of mutation. beyond three years from the date of attestation of mutation. 27.
Decision
In view of the above-discussion and a In view of the above pplying these settled principles, discussion and applying these settled principles, it is evident that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court it is evident that the findings of the are in learned Lower Appellate Court are in laiming inheritance from their father consonance with law. The plaintiffs were claiming inheritance from their father laiming inheritance from their father consonance with law. The plaintiffs were c TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-218-2017 (O&M) -10- - , and their right cannot be defeated on the ground of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, and their right cannot be defeated on the ground of , and their right cannot be defeated on the ground of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram limitation. The trial court, in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, ignored the limitation. The trial court, in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, ignored the limitation. The trial court, in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, ignored the limitation. The trial court, in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, ignored the learned Lower settled law that no limitation is prescribed in such cases. The learned Lower settled law that no limitation is prescribed in such cases settled law that no limitation is prescribed in such cases rightly held that the plaintiffs had a continuing cause of action and Appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiffs had a continuing cause of action and rightly held that the plaintiffs had a continuing cause of action and Appellate Court decreed the suit. decreed the suit. Conclusion 28. Accordingly, this Court upholds the judgment and decree passed by ccordingly, this Court upholds the judgment and decree passed by ccordingly, this Court upholds the judgment and decree passed by ccordingly, this Court upholds the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court Lower Appellate Court dated 03.12.2016 . It is held that the suit of the dated 03.12.2016. It is held that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by limitation, and the decree declaring them to be owners in plaintiffs is not barred by limitation, and the decree declaring them to be owners in plaintiffs is not barred by limitation, and the decree declaring them to be owners in plaintiffs is not barred by limitation, and the decree declaring them to be owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares, while setting aside the impugned possession of the suit land in equal shares, while setting aside the impugned possession of the suit land in equal shares, while setting aside the impugned possession of the suit land in equal shares, while setting aside the impugned mutations, is affirmed. mutations, is affirmed. 29. 30. missed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dis Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 2025 September 05, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document