Holding

The suit is not time‑barred; the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 does not apply and the Limitation Act, 1963 governs.

Summary

The plaintiff, Surtu, daughter of Basanti, sued the defendants for possession of land after Basanti, a widow who held only a life estate in her husband's ancestral property, allegedly made an oral gift of portions of that land to collaterals in 1936. The trial court held that the widow had no right to alienate the property, the gift was void, and that the suit was filed within the 12‑year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The first appellate court affirmed this view. The High Court reversed, holding the suit time‑barred under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. The Supreme Court examined the Full Bench decision in Narottam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi and held that the Punjab Custom Act does not apply to suits by female heirs challenging a widow’s alienation, so the Limitation Act, 1963 governs and the suit was not barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the trial court decree, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the suit for possession filed by the daughter is barred by limitation under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 or the Limitation Act, 1963.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Hindu lawlife estatewidow's right of alienationoral giftlimitation periodPunjab Limitation (Custom) ActLimitation Act 1963ancestral propertycustomary lawsuit for possession

Judgment

RANBIR SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Hindu Law:

Limited estate-Widow inherited life estate in the property of her
husband-Gifted part of such properties to collaterals of her husband- C
Daughter claimed entire property after death of her mother-Trial Court held,
widow having no right to alienate such properties, oral gift to collaterals
void-Affirmed by First Appellate Court-Reversed by High Court holding the
suit time-barred-Correctness of-Held: In view ofprevailing custom, provision
of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act does not apply-The suit/or possession D
of immovable property filed soon after the death of widow/the ancesstor and
it would be appropriately governed by the provision ofLimitation Act-Hence
not time barred-Limitation Act, 1968-Artic/e 65-Punjab Limitation (Custom)
Act, 1920.

Mother of the original plaintiff in a suit for possession of share in E
the suit properties, had inherited the life estate in the property of her
husband and his brother and alienated part of such property in favour of
collaterals of her husband. Plaintiff filed a suit and it was decreed in his
favour. The decision was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. However,
in the second appeal, High Court reversed the same holding the suit time- F
barred. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: On a proper analysis on facts and the legal position explained
in *Narottam Chand and Anr. v. Mst. Durg and Ors., having regard to custom
prevailing then and legislative history and background of the Punjab G
Limitation (Custom) Act, the suit was not barred by time as the Act did not
apply. It was the Limitation Act, 1963 that is applicable as held by the Trial
Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Under these circumstances,
the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained.1297-H; 298-A, BI

291
H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R.

A Raj Narain Pandey and Ors. v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Ors.. (197312
SCC 38 and Jagdish Lal v. Parma Nanci, JT (200013 SC 580, referred to.

*Naro/am Chand and Anr. v. Mst. Durga Devi, AIR (1949) East Punjab
1091, approved.

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7122of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.1996 of the Himachal High
Court in R.S.A. No. 274 of 1989.

Dinesh Dwivedi, Manoj Rajan Sinha and P.N. Puri, for the Appellants.
c Yasobant Das and Punit Dut Tyagi, for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs assailing
D the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in a second appeal reversing
the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming the judgment
and decree of the trial court.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for possession of shares
in the suit properties. The trial court as well as the first appellate court
E concurrently held that the original plaintiff Surtu was daughter of Basanti,
who had inherited the life estate in the property of her husband Sihnu and his
brother Nainu; that the parties are governed by custom on which a widow
having life estate in the ancestral property does not have the right of alienation.
In view of these concurrent findings it was held that the oral gift made by
Basanti in favour of Ram Ditta and Khazan on 20th February, 1936 in respect
F of the suit properties was void and not binding on Surtu. Ram Ditta and
Khazan have been held to be collaterals of Sihnu within fourth degree, who
would have inherited the suit lands after the death of Basanti, had she died
before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. Their defence that gift
was made by way of surrender or in acceleration of succession was rejected
G by the trial court as well as the first appellate court stating that the gift was
not of entire holding of Basanti as she had retained one-third property for
herself and that the gift cannot be held to be surrender or in acceleration of
succession. The defendants raised objection that the suit of Surtu was barred
under Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 (for brevity 'the Act'). The trial
-
court recorded a finding that the suit filed by Surtu was within time and this
H finding was affirmed by the learned District Judge in first appeal relying on
RANBIR SINGH v. KART AR SINGH (PATIL, J.] 293
Full Bench judgment of the High Court in Narotam Chand and Anr. v. Mst. A
Durga Devi, AIR (1949) East Punjab 109, that the suit of the plaintiff was
governed by general law oflimitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (old Act of 1908) wherein the period of limitation prescribed is 12
years for a suit for possession of immovable property from the date of cause
of action that has arisen to Surtu on the death of Basanti on 2.9 .1968 and not
by the Act. B
The High Court in the seeond appeal in the impugned judgment has
recorded, thus: -

"The preliminary objection of limitation that suit of Surtu was barred
tinder Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920, (hereinafter called as C
the 'Act'), is also decided against the appellants-defendants. Shri
Bhupender Gupta, learned counsel appearing for appellants-defendants,
has no.t challenged the concurrent findings of fact arrived· at by both
the Courts below that Basanti had inherited life estate in the property
of her husband Sihnu alias Lehnu as well as his brother Nainu which D
was ancestral in their hands and she could not alienate the said property
by way of oral gift dated 2.2.1936 under the custom governing the
parties. Shri Bhupender Gupta has limited his challenge to the findings
of both the Courts below on the point of law that the suit of Surtu
was time barred under Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920."
E
Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal holding
that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time observing that both the
courts below did not correctly appreciate and apply the aforementioned Full
Bench decision, and set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of
the plaintiff dismissing the suit as barred by time. In these circumstances the
plaintiffs have brought this appeal to this Court. F
At the outset it may be stated that the only point that arise for
consideration in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was
barred by time.

The learned counsel appearing on either side in their arguments reiterated G
the submissions that were made before the High Court. While the learned
counsel for the appellants challenged the correctness of the impugned
judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents supported it. Both the
learned counsel in support of their contentions relied on the very Full Bench
aforementioned decision of the High Court. H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A In the light of what is stated above, the question that arises for
consideration is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by time. The
answer to this question depends on whether the suit filed by a daughter
(plaintiff) in the year 1969 challenging the gift made by her mother (after her
death in 1968) in favour of the defendants in the year 1936 as void ab initio
B is governed by the provisions of the Act or Limitation Act, 1963. The facts
that are not disputed or found established are the following.

Disputed lands were inherited by Sinhu and Nainu from their father.
After their death, the said lands were inherited by Basanti, widow of Sinhu
(the mother of the plaintiff). Since there were no reversioners or collateral
C available, Basanti executed an oral gift of two-third share in Khata no. 7 and
one-fourth share in Khata no. 8 in favour of Ramditta and Khazan on
20.2.1968. Surtu filed the suit for possession of the property as sole successor
of Basanti who died on 2.9.1968 and, therefore, she had inherited entire
estate of Basanti because the gift of 20.2.1936 was void as Basanti had only
a life estate with no right of alienation. Basanti could not alienate the property
D by way of oral gift dated 20.2.1936 under prevailing custom. The gift was
held illegal and plaintiff Surtu was the only successor of Basanti after her
death. Defendants are not reversioners in respect of disputed property and but
for the gift they had no right in the lands. Findings of fact recorded by the
trial court and the first appellate court were not challenged before the High
E Court. Once the gift was held illegal and void ab initio, the plaintiff being the
only person in law of succession who would inherit the suit property from
her mother. The trial court as well as the first appellate court referred to and
fully relied on full bench decision of five Judges in Narotam Chand and Anr.
v. Mst. Durga Devi, AIR (1949) East Punjab I 09 in holding that the suit filed
by the plaintiffs was not ba~d by time as the Act had no application to the
F suit filed by the plaintiffs in the light of the undisputed or established facts.
The High Court in the impugned judgment, as already noticed above, found
fault with the finding recorded by the courts below on the question oflimitation
observing that the aforementioned full bench decision was not properly
understood and applied. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to have a
G closer look of the judgment in Narotam Chand case (supra).

Two questions were referred to a full bench of five Judges. They were
(l) whether Punjab Act governs the suits brought by female heirs or other
cognate relations to challenge alienations made by a widow who is in
possession of the property of her husband ;ind who had descended from his
H ancestors, (2) whether the property of a maternal grandfather in the hands of
--
RANBIR SINGH v. KART AR SINGH [PATIL, J.] 295

the grandson can be treated ancestral qua his son and can be regarded as such A
while it is in the hands of the daughter; in other words, whether any property
in the hands of a female heir can be regarded as ancestral immovable property
within the meaning of the term as usually understood in Customary Law. The
facts of the case were that Ms. Durga Devi, daughter of one Kalu challenged
two gifts made by her mother in favour of one Mangtu, daughter's son of
same Kalu from his second wife Mt. Kauri and sought for possession by B
filing a suit on 12.4.1943. After the death of her mother, Mt. Kauri on
17 .8.1942 filed a suit for recovery of one-half share in the gifted property on
the allegation that her mother had no power to make the gift and deprived
one of her daughters of the inheritance of her father. The suit was resisted
by donees on various pleas one such plea being the suit was barred by C
limitation. The trial court dismissed the suit on finding that it was gove!Jled
by Punjab Act, the property alienated being ancestral of Kalu. This decision
was reversed on appeal by the learned Single Judge who took the view that
qua the daughter i.e. the plaintiff in the case, the property could not be held
ancestral as it had not descended to her in the male line of descent from the
common ancestor, so the suit was decreed in respect of the half of the property D
in suit. Against this decision, donee's son Narottam Chand and his other Mt.
Kauri preferred a second appeal to the High Court. In the first instance, the
second appeal was heard by learned Single Judge who felt that the question
involved was of considerable importance and referred the appeal to a Divis1on
Bench. Before the Division Bench, correctness of the two full bench decisions E
was challenged. In those circumstances, the matter was submitted to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench for the decision of the appeal
and for an authoritative pronouncement on the above stated questions.

Having exhaustively considered various factual and legal aspects, the
full bench answered the two questions in para 17 of the judgment stating F
thus:-"

"I 7. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the decisions
in Lehna v. Mt. Thakri 32 P.R. (1895) (F.B.) and in Mt. Attar Kaur
v. Nikkoo, 5 Lah. 356 : A.LR. (I I) 1924 Lah 538 (F.B.) should be G
held as not laying down a correct rule of law, and it should be held
that property of a maternal grandfather in the hands of a daughter or
of a grandson is not ancestral qua his descendants and therefore Act
I of I 920 has no application to suits brought by such persons to
challenge alienations by female owners. I am further of the opinion
that the scope of Act I of 1920 is limited only to those kinds of suits H
~-

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 2 S.C.R. ~

A which are brought to safeguard rights by collaterals in respects of
ancestral immovable property on the rule laid down in Art. 59 of
Rattigan's Digest Qf Customary Law and that the definition of
"ancestral property" given in Explanation 1 of Art. 59 of Rattigan 's
Digest of Customary Law is the definition in which that expression
is used in Act I of 1920. It now remains to consider the decision in
B Ram Sarup v. Mt. Jai Devi, A.LR. (33) 1946 Lah 272: (222 I.C. 162)
where it was held that the word "ancestral property" has not been
defined in Act I of 1920 and in the absence of any definition, the
ordinary dictionary meaning is to be given to it and if the rights on
the basis of which the plaintiff was claiming the property happened .....
c to belong to his father, it would be ancestral qua him and would,
therefore, come within the ambit of col. I of Art. 6. With great
' deference to the learned Judge, I am bound to observe that this decision
is not very intelligible. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff
sued the landlords of a certain tenancy claiming that as an adopted
son under Hindu law he was a male lineal descendant of the last
D occupancy tenant and was entitled to succeed to the tenancy in view
of the provisions of S. 59, Punjab Tenancy Act. On those allegations
I fail to understand how could Act I of 1920 be made applicable to
that suit, the claim being based under Hindu law. Moreover, the Act
would have no application to such a suit brought against the landlords
E of a tenancy under the provisions ofth1: Punjab Tenancy Act. In view
of the observations made above, it is not necessary to c~nsider this ,..___
decision at any great length. In my view, it does not help any of the
contentions raised by Mr. Puri. It may be observed that the dictionary
meaning of ancestral immovable property cannot legitimately be
considered in determining the meaning of that term in a statute which
F regulates the period of limitation for suits permitted by Punjab custom.
Under custom, the term 'ancestral immovable property' has been ~-...:

understood in the sense in which it has been defined in explanation
I to Art. 59 of Rattigan 's Digest of Customary Law_ and under all
canons of construction of statutes it will not be permissible to resort
to the dictionary in preference to this definition. The term has a
G
technical meaning in Hindu law and any use of the dictionary meaning
of the term in construing statutes dealing with Hindu law subject.~
will be questionable. The same is the case where a statute regulates
limitation for suits under custom."

H Dealing with the principle on which suits of the description mentioned
RANBIR SINGH v. KART AR SINGH [PATIL, J.] 297
in Punjab Act are governed, as regards limitation, on similar facts with which A
we are concerned in the present case, in para 5 of the judgment, while
explaining the meaning of ancestral property, it is held that the property not
being ancestral qua the plaintiff, the article has no application.

It is clear from paras I to 5 of the judgment in Narotam Chand (supra)
that the Act does not govern suits brought by female heirs or other cognate B
relations to challenge alienations made by a widow who is in possession of
the .property of her husband which had descended to him from his ancestors.
Further the aforementioned Full Bench decision in Narotam Chand case has
been holding the field all along since 1949, which in our opinion, supports
the case of the plaintiffs fully. C
This Court in Raj Narain Pandey and Ors. v. Sant Prasad Tewari and
Ors., [1973] 2 SCC 35, dealing with the decision of long standing in the
matter of interpretation of a local statute has held that such a decision should
not be lightly disturbed. In para I 0 of the said judgment it is stated, thus: -
D
"In the matter of the interpretation of a local statute, the view taken
by the High Court over a number of years should normally be adhered
to and not disturbed. A different view woulq not only introduce an
element of uncertainty and confusion, it would also have the effect of
unsettling transactions which might have been entered into on the
faith of those decisions. The doctrine of stare decisis can be aptly E
invoked in such a situation. As observed by Lord Evershed M.R. in
the case of Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn., (1958) Ch
574 (CA), there is well established authority for the view that a
decision of long-standing on the basis of which many persons will in
the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be F
disturbed by a superior court not strictly bound itself by the decision."

Again, to the same effect, in the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Lal v.
Parma Nanci, JT (2000) 3 SC 580, in para 18 it is observed that "where local
laws provide a specific prohibition in respect of the use of the premises under
the Rent Legislation and that provision has been interpreted in a particular G
manner by the High Comt consistently, it would not be proper to disturb the
course of decisions by interpreting that provision differently".

We do not find any good ground or a valid reason to differ with the
conclusions arrived at in the Full Bench decision aforementioned on the two
questions. The analysis made on facts and the legal position explained in the H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S,C.R. ---
A aforementioned full bench judgment, having regard to custom prevailing then
and legislative history and background of the Act, in our view, fully support
the case of the plaintiffs-appellants to hold that the suit was not barred by
time as the Act did not apply. It was the Limitation Act, 1963 that is applicable
as held by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. Under these
circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained.
B Consequently, the same are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the
trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court stand restored. The appeal
is allowed accordingly. No costs.

S.K.S Appeal allowed.
c

.
L
'r