Darshan Singh and ors. Vs. Gurdev Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 10. in view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the well reasoned judgment of the learned first appellate court which is hereby affirmed.s.k. jain, j.1. civil suit no. 268 of 1982 filed by gurdev singh, respondent herein, for a decree of declaration that he was owner in possession of thesuit land and in the alternative for a decree of possession was dismissed by the sub judge1st class, nakodar vide his judgment and decree dated august 28, 1984. civil appeal no. 362 of 1984 against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court was allowed by the additional district and sessions judge, jalandhar, vide his judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986.2. it is that judgment and decree of the first appellate court which has been appealed against by the defendants and which requires my examination of its sustainability.3. i have seen the pleadings in the suit, the evidence adduced in the suit and the judgments of both the courts below.4. facts giving rise to this litigation are that gurdev singh claiming to be the son of attu alias atma singh filed the above said civil suit. his plea is that his father died in 1966-67 where after he was in possession of the suit land as owner. since he was minor at the time of the death of his father, defendant no. 1 and 2 on the strength of an alleged will got mutation sanctioned in their favour in respect of the suit land. the suit was contested by the defendants. they averred that the suit was barred by limitation; that atma singh executed a registered will dated 4th december, 1962 bequeathing his entire property in their favour that defendant no. 2 had sold 15 kanals 15marlas of land vide two registered sale deeds in favour of defendants no. 5 and 6 who were bonafide purchasers with consideration and without notice. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1. whether attu alias atma singh died in 1966-67 and the plaintiffs are his legal heirs. if so, to what effect?2. whether the mutation of the land regarding the estate of said attu has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2? if so, to whateffect?3. whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land 7 if so to what effect?4. whether the suit is within limitation?5. whether atma singh executed a registered will dated 4.12.1962 in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2? if so, to what effect?6. whether the defendant nos. 5 and 6 are bonafide purchasers of the suit land for a valuable consideration if so, to what effect?7. whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct?8. whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?9. whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?10. whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?11. whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration and in the alternative for possession?5. the trial court found that the plaintiff was the son of atma singh; the he being legal heir of his father had locus standi to file the present suit; that the suit had been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction; that since particulars of the acts and conduct of the plaintiff that estopped him from filing the suit had not been given, the suit was not hit by doctoring of estoppel; that defendants no. 5 and 6 were not bona fide purchasers of the suit land; that the will propounded by defendant nos. 1 and 2 was not a genuine document; that sanction of mutation in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 does not have any adverse effect on the rights of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and that the suit was bared by limitation.6. the plaintiff had filed the appeal. the defendants did not file any cross appeal. the learned ist appellate court in his judgment affirmed the findings of the trial court on all the issues except issue no. 4. on the question of limitation, he has held that gurdev singh attained majority on 25.4.1977 ad that the will having not been proved to be a genuine document and defendants no. 5 and 6 to be not bonafide purchasers, the plaintiff was entitled to claim possession within a period of 12 years from the date of attaining majority. since the plaintiff attained majority on17.4.1977, the suit instituted on 4.11.1982 was within limitation.7. learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that birth entry exhibit p-2 having not been connected with gurdev singh, it cannot be said that he was proved to be the son of attu alias atma singh. in reply, learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the pleadings of the parties. in para 1 of the plaint, it is mentioned that attu alias atma singh was the father of the plaintiff. in the corresponding para of the written statement, the whole of parano.1 of the plaint, was admitted to be correct. in view of the above said admission on the part of the defendants, the above arguments is not available to the learned counsel for the appellant.8. second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in civil suit no. 453 instituted in the year 1967 harnam singh and gurnam singh through their mother smt. prem kaur had asserted that they were the sons of atma singh. it shows that gurdev singh plaintiff was not born from the womb of smt. prem kaur and loins of atma singh. this argument attractive at first sight is, in my opinion, not tenable in view of the admission on the part of the defendants to the effect that atma singh alias attu was the father of gurdev singh.9. the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit had not been brought within limitation. i do not find any force in this argument also. exhibit p-2, the birth entry, shows that gurdev singh was born on 17.4.1959. he attained majority on 17.4.1977. atma singh had died in the year 1963. since the succession does not remain in abeyance, gurdev singh minor had succeeded to the estate of atma singh oh his death. in view of section 6 read with article 65 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963, gurdev singh could bring a suit for possession within a period of 12 years from the date of attaining majority i.e. with effect from 17.4.1977. the suit having been filed on 4.11.1982, was certainly within limitation.10. in view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the well reasoned judgment of the learned first appellate court which is hereby affirmed. resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.