Udhav (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. Vs. Pandharinath Kishanrao Tak & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2205 of 1989
Petitioner: Udhav (Dead) by LRs. & Anr.
Respondent: Pandharinath Kishanrao Tak & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2205 of 1989
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Civil suit challenging sale deed filed after 17 years, sale deed having been executed in 1958 and suit filed in 1975 – High Court holding the suit to be time barred – Whether Supreme Court can interfere under Article 136 of Constitution. Held it was not a fit case for such intervention. Suit being ex-facie time barred, High Court’s reasoning was legal and valid and called for no interference.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Some of the heirs of appellant No. 1 are served. There is no conflict of interest between the heirs of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2. Hence learned Counsel for appellant No.2 was heard in support of this appeal.
2. In our view no case is made out for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the correct view that Sevantabai being the widow staying in the joint family was in possession of the property in lieu of her claim for maintenance and under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act that right matured in full ownership and therefore, she had become full owner when the sale deed was executed in favour of her son-in-law, defendant No.1. The sale deed was executed on 24.1.1958 while the appellants as plaintiffs tried to challenge the sale deed after 17 years in 1975. Therefore, the suit was clearly time-barred. The observa-tion of the High Court that the question of limitation would have required the matter to be remanded , to say a least, is not sus-tainable for the simple reason that the suit is ex-facie time-barred. That apart, even on merits, the reasoning of the High Court was legal and valid. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. Some of the heirs of appellant No. 1 are served. There is no conflict of interest between the heirs of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2. Hence learned Counsel for appellant No.2 was heard in support of this appeal.
2. In our view no case is made out for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the correct view that Sevantabai being the widow staying in the joint family was in possession of the property in lieu of her claim for maintenance and under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act that right matured in full ownership and therefore, she had become full owner when the sale deed was executed in favour of her son-in-law, defendant No.1. The sale deed was executed on 24.1.1958 while the appellants as plaintiffs tried to challenge the sale deed after 17 years in 1975. Therefore, the suit was clearly time-barred. The observa-tion of the High Court that the question of limitation would have required the matter to be remanded , to say a least, is not sus-tainable for the simple reason that the suit is ex-facie time-barred. That apart, even on merits, the reasoning of the High Court was legal and valid. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
