Pal Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs v. Rajinder Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 18.12.2018 Pal Singh (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant

Versus

Rajinder Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the appellant.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J.

The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the plaintiff has not been successful in setting aside the registered gift deeds dated 10.04.1997 and 11.04.1997, allegedly executed by him in favour of defendant No.1, being grand son of his brother.

It was alleged that the plaintiff had no intention to gift, but had gone to the office of the sub-registrar for the execution of the lease deed, but Rajinder Singh played fraud, rather misrepresented. His thumbimpressions were obtained at the receipt of the deed writer under form on the pretext of execution of the lease deed. There was no occasion for him to execute the aforementioned documents, in view of the living daughter. The mutation was also got sanctioned at his back. The plaintiff only came to know few days back and filed the aforementioned suit. The defendants opposed the suit stated to be volunteer act of the plaintiff and filing of the suit to be act of greed. Even this fact was in the

knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, stated to be barred by law of limitation.

The plaintiff examined five witnesses including expert, whereas the defendants examined eight witnesses. Both the parties brought on record extensive evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the Courts below abdicated in not appreciating the fact that the defendants, who propounded the gift deeds, did not examine any witnesses. The deed writer did not recognize the falsity, though he acknowledged to have scribed the gift deeds. There was no occasion to execute the gift deeds in favour of defendant No.1, being the grand son of his, brother as he had living daughter. The suit cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation as the plaintiff acquired the knowledge of the gift deeds few days before the filing of the suit, therefore, the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act would be applicable.

I am afraid the aforementioned arguments are not sustainable, for, no explanation has come forward as despite mutation having been entered in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff was not aware of the gift deeds, particularly when the possession was also with the defendants. The provisions of Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of reckoning the delay, envisage the following situations:- Article Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run To obtain any other declaration.

Three years.

When the right to sue first accrues.

Three years.

When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.

On plain and simple reading of the aforementioned provisions, To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract.

the plaintiff's case was squarely fall within the parameters of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. It is a common practice amongst the persons to execute the document and thereafter, wriggle out. DW1-Deed Writer, has been examined and he acknowledged to have scribed the gift deeds. In such circumstances, non-examination of the attesting witnesses pales into insignificance.

In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 18.12.2018 Yogesh Sharma ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No