Kitabo Devi and Others Vs Shanti Devi and Others

Pr e sent RSA has been filed by th e appellants/defendants No. 1 t o 5, namely Kitabo Devi and others, who are the legal heirs of Jage Ram, aga i nst Shanti Devi an d others (plaintiffs and defend a nts No. 6 to 12), challenging the judgment and d ecree dated 03.12.2016 passe d by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

¶18

Brief Facts

¶19

Th e plaintiffs, namely Shanti Devi, Chhotan Devi, and Dha p an, daughters of Su k ha @ Sukhi Ram, instituted a s uit against the legal representat i ves of Jage Ram, t h e legal representatives of Ra n Singh, and Ram Kishan, son s of Sukha @ Sukh i Ram. The brief facts, as set o ut in the plaint, are that Sukh a @ TRIPTI SAINISukhi Ram had three daughters, i.e., the presen t plaintiffs, and three sons, nam e ly, 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 2 -

¶21

Ram Kishan (d e fendant No. 12), Ran Singh (s i nce deceased) now represente d by defendants No. 6 to 11), and Jage Ram (pred e ceased) represented by defend a nts No. 1 to 5).

¶22

It w as pleaded that Sukha @ Suk h i Ram, father of the plaintiffs and defendants Ra m Kishan, Ran Singh, and Jage R am, was the owner in possessio n of the suit land. H e died about 18–19 years prior to the institution of the suit. U p on his death, the p l aintiffs along with their three b rothers succeeded to the estate and became owner s in possession of the suit lan d in equal shares. The case of the plaintiffs is tha t being married in different vill a ges, they occasionally used to v isit their parental h ouse for the purpose of colle c ting rent of their share from the agricultural lan d . However, in the year 2008, w hen the defendants refused to p ay them the rent, they approached the Halqa P a twari and came to know that the mutation of in h eritance of their father Sukha @ Sukhi Ram had been sanctio n ed and attested e x clusively in favour of the ot h er heirs to the exclusion of the plaintiffs.

¶23

It w as further pleaded that after the death of Ran Singh also, the mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his legal representati v es, i.e., defendants No. 6 to 11, without recog n izing the share of the plaint i ffs. According to th e plaintiffs, both these mutation s are wrong, illegal, and against law and, therefore, l iable to be set aside. The plaint i ffs accordingly sought a decree for declaration to t h e effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land in e q ual shares as reflec t ed in the Jamabandi for the ye a rs 2004–2005. In the alternativ e , it was prayed tha t in case they are found to be o u t of possession or are disposse s sed during the pend e ncy of the proceedings, the sui t be decreed for joint possession.

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

Upon notice, defendants No. 1 to 5 , being the legal representative s of Jage Ram, and defendant No. 12, Ram Kisha n , appeared and contested the s uit. Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written stat e ment, while defendant No. 12 fi led his separate w r itten statement. In both sets o f written statements, prelimi n ary objections wer e raised regarding locus standi, m aintainability, and other techn i cal grounds. On m e rits, the defendants categorica l ly denied the relationship clai m ed by the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded tha t the plaintiffs are not the daugh t ers of Sukha @ S u khi Ram, who had only thr e e sons, namely, Ran Singh, R am Kishan, and Ja g e Ram. On this basis, the defen d ants asserted that after the deat h of Sukha @ Sukhi Ram, they alone became owne r s in possession of his movable and immovable pro p erty, and that the mutations of i nheritance were rightly entered and attested in their favour.

¶27

Th e plaintiffs filed replication t o the written statements of the defendants, wh e rein they reiterated the averm e nts made in the plaint and de n ied those in the wri t ten statements.

¶28

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties , the following issues were fra m ed for adjudicatio n :

¶29

Whether the plaintiffs are o w ners in possession of suit prop e rty in e qual shares? OPP

¶30

Whether mutation of inhe r itance of Sukha @ Sukhi R am be a ring No. 322 dated 21.07.1995, and mutation regarding inherit a nce of Ran Singh, son of Sukha @ S ukhi Ram, bearing No. 423 d a ted 04.09.2003, are illegal, wrong, nu l l and void ab-initio and thus li a ble to b e set aside? OPP

¶31

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA-218-2017 (O&M)

¶33

- 4 -

¶34

If the above issues are prove d , whether the plaintiffs are enti t led to a decree of declaration with a lternative relief of possessio n as pr a yed for? OPP

¶35

Whether the present suit i s not maintainable in the pre s ent for m ? OPD

¶36

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the pre s ent sui t ? OPD

¶37

Whether the plaintiffs have n ot approached the Court with c l ean ha n ds and have concealed true a n d material facts from the Co u rt? O P D

¶38

Whether the present suit is h o pelessly time-barred? OPD

¶39

Relief.

¶40

Bo t h the parties led their respectiv e evidence.

¶41

Findings of the Trial Court

¶42

Af t er appreciating the pleadings a nd evidence and hearing lear n ed counsel for the parties, the learned trial court r eturned a finding that the caus e of action, if any, a c crued to the plaintiffs either o n 20.06.1991, when Sukha @ S u khi Ram died, or o n 21.07.1995, when the mutatio n of inheritance of Sukha @ S u khi Ram was enter e d and attested, whereas the pre s ent suit has not been filed with i n a period of limita t ion, that is, three years from th e date on which cause of action h ad arisen.

¶43

It w as further observed that the la w regarding limitation is clear, and the Court shoul d be vigilant enough to check t h e limitation on the suit, as no r e lief can be given t o a person who has approache d the Court beyond the prescri b ed

¶44

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

RSA-218-2017 (O&M)

¶46

- 5 -

¶47

period of limita t ion. Accordingly, considering t h e suit to be barred by limitatio n , it was dismissed o n that ground.

¶48

Fe e ling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Co u rt, an appeal was preferred by t h e plaintiffs.

¶49

Findings of the Lower Appellate Court

¶50

Th e learned Lower Appellate Co u rt decreed the suit of the plain t iffs by setting aside the judgment and decree passe d by the trial court, holding that the suit land is joi n tly owned and possessed by th e parties to the suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs have a continuing cause of action to f ile the suit as and when their ri g hts are threatened.

¶51

It w as further observed that the p laintiffs were claiming declara t ion being in posse s sion as co-sharers, and the ba s is for such declaration was a p reexisting right i n the suit land on the ground of i n heritance of the property of Su k ha @ Sukhi Ram, t heir father, by challenging the m utation of inheritance of Sukh a @ Sukhi Ram. It w as further observed that there i s nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs had e v er approached the revenue aut h orities for sanction of mutatio n of their father afte r his death, and it is not even th e case of the defendants that an y of the plaintiffs w e re present at the time of attesta t ion of mutation. Thus, the poi n t of limitation stood determined against the defenda n ts. 14. Th e learned Lower Appellate Co u rt relied upon various judgme n ts, including a Di v ision Bench judgment of this Court in Ibrahim @ Dharamvir versus Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti reported in 1979 PLJ 469 and held that there i s no limitation for fi l ing a suit on the basis of inherit a nce. 15. Ac c ordingly, the point of lim i tation was decided against the TRIPTI SAINIdefendants, an d the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that they are 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 6 -

¶53

owners in poss e ssion in equal shares of the la n d as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1994– 9 5. It was further declared that t h e mutation of inheritance of Su k ha @ Sukhi Ram a s well as the mutation of inh e ritance regarding the share of R an Singh are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to b e set aside as not binding upon the rights of the pla i ntiffs.

¶54

Fe e ling aggrieved by the above o rder passed by the learned Lo w er Appellate Cour t , the present appeal has been fi l ed by appellants/defendants Kit a bo Devi and others, legal heirs of Jage Ram s/o Su k ha @ Sukhi Ram. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Appellants

¶55

It is argued by learned counsel fo r the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 5 that the impu g ned judgment and decree date d 03.12.2016 passed by the lear n ed Appellate Cour t is against facts, contrary to la w , illegal, void, and deserves t o be set aside. It is s ubmitted that the learned Appe l late Court failed to appreciate t hat the present suit was filed beyond the period o f limitation of three years after the cause of action arose to the plaintiffs, i.e., on the death of their father Sukh a @ Sukhi Ram as w ell as the date on which the m utation of inheritance of Sukh a @ Sukhi Ram wa s entered and attested. Referrin g to Exhibit P-5, counsel submi t ted that Sukha @ S ukhi Ram died on 20.06.1991 a nd the mutation of inheritance w as entered and attested on 21.07.1995, whereas th e suit was filed much after the c a use of action.

¶56

It w as further argued that it is an a dmitted fact that the plaintiffs u sed to visit their p a rental house for collecting rent of their share. This clearly sh o ws that they had k n owledge of the death of their f ather as well as of the mutatio n in favour of the s o ns. Despite this knowledge, t h ey did not file the suit within the TRIPTI SAINIprescribed peri o d. It was next contended tha t the plaintiffs never remaine d in 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 7 -

¶58

possession and t hat they have not sought the relief of possession. Had they so u ght possession, the suit filed within 12 years w o uld have been within limitat i on. However, sinc e the plaintiffs sought only dec l aration to the effect that they are owners in poss e ssion, the limitation of three y ears applies, and thus, the lear n ed trial court right l y held that the suit was barre d by limitation. The findings of the learned Lower A ppellate Court, therefore, are p e rverse and liable to be set aside.

¶59

Submissions of Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

¶60

O n the other hand, learned couns e l for the respondents/plaintiffs has argued that th e re is no illegality in the well - reasoned judgment passed by the learned Lower A ppellate Court. It was contend e d that in matters of inheritance , no period of limit a tion is prescribed, as inherita n ce never remains in abeyance and heirs succeed t o the property of the deceased in accordance with law. Muta t ion entries do not c o nfer title, and the mere fact tha t the same were entered in favour of the sons exclu d ing the daughters cannot de n y the right of inheritance to the daughters. It w a s urged that the suit cannot be h e ld to be time-barred. 20. In s upport of his contentions, cou n sel for the respondents relied u p on Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another Vs. Kashmira Singh, AIR 1985 Punjab 215 , wherein a Divisio n Bench of this Court held t hat inheritance does not remain in abeyance and that heirs succeed to the prop e rty immediately u p on the death of the last male holder, and that no limitatio n is prescribed for f i ling a suit for possession based o n inheritance. Findings of This Court

¶61

I h ave considered the rival sub m issions of learned counsel for the parties and ha v e carefully perused the record . The sole question that arises for

¶62

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

RSA-218-2017 (O&M)

¶64

- 8 -

¶65

consideration i s whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.

¶66

It i s a settled principle of law that i n matters relating to inheritance , no period of limita t ion is prescribed for seeking p o ssession of property on the basi s of succession. Th e rights of heirs arise immediat e ly upon the death of the last m ale holder, and suc h rights cannot be defeated mer e ly on the ground that mutation w as sanctioned in f a vour of some heirs excluding ot h ers. Mutation is only a fiscal e n try for revenue pur p oses and does not create or exti n guish title. 23. Th e Learned Lower Appellate C o urt was correct in relying on the principle that w here a plaintiff bases his or her claim on inheritance, there exists a continuing cause of action so long as their righ t is denied. In the case of Mohinder Singh (died) and Rep. by his LRs and Another (supra) , a Division Bench of t his Court categorically held that no limitation is p rescribed for a suit for posses s ion based upon inh e ritance. This view was also affi r med by a Coordinate Bench of t his Court in Ganpat and another versus Lachhman and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 9 , wherein it w a s held that there is no limitatio n for a suit for possession base d on inheritance, an d such a suit cannot be dismisse d as time-barred. 24. Si m ilarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh versus Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 409 , held that a wido w is entitled to succ e ed and become absolute owne r under the provisions of the Hi n du Succession Act , and mere sanction of mutation i n favour of another person will not divest her of h er right. Mutation entries ca n not convey or extinguish titl e in property, the w i dow must be deemed to have c o ntinued in possession and bec o me the absolute ow n er.

¶67

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 9 -

¶69

As regards the cause of action, r e ference may also be made to the judgment of a D ivision Bench of this Court i n Ibrahim @ Dharamveer versus Smt. Sharifa @ Shanti, 1979 PLJ 469 , whe r e it was held that mere entr y of mutation in the name of a defendant would no t furnish any cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration.

¶70

It i s also pertinent to observe th a t under the law of successio n as envisaged in t h e Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, the daughters are recognized as C lass-I heirs, entitled to inheri t the estate of their father equ a lly along with the s ons. The right of succession is a substantive right, which acc r ues immediately on the death of the last male hold e r and does not remain in abeya n ce. Such rights o f inheritance flow from statu t e and not from any subseq u ent recognition by w ay of mutation or other entrie s in the revenue record. Mutatio n is merely a fiscal arrangement for collection of l and revenue and cannot curtai l or extinguish the vested rights of heirs under s uccession law. Once the righ t of inheritance has crystallized by operation of l a w, the same continues to su b sist unless lawfully divested in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefor e , a daughter’s rig h t to succeed to her father’s p roperty cannot be denied on the technical groun d of limitation, as the cause of action in such cases is a recur r ing one, subsisting s o long as her right is denied o r threatened. Thus, viewed from the perspective of s uccession law, the daughters stand on an equal footing with s o ns, and their claim based on inheritance cannot be defeated merely because the su i t is filed beyond th r ee years from the date of attesta t ion of mutation. 27. In v iew of the above-discussion a n d applying these settled princi p les, it is evident t h at the findings of the learn e d Lower Appellate Court ar e in TRIPTI SAINIconsonance wi t h law. The plaintiffs were clai m ing inheritance from their fa t her 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶71

RSA-218-2017 (O&M) - 10 -

¶72

Sukha @ Suk h i Ram, and their right cann o t be defeated on the groun d of limitation. The t rial court, in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, ignored the settled law tha t no limitation is prescribed i n such cases. The learned Lo w er Appellate Cour t rightly held that the plaintiffs h ad a continuing cause of action and decreed the suit.

¶73

Conclusion

¶74

Ac c ordingly, this Court upholds t h e judgment and decree passe d by the learned Lo w er Appellate Court dated 03.1 2 .2016. It is held that the suit of the plaintiffs is not barred by limitation, and the de c ree declaring them to be owners in possession of t he suit land in equal shares, while setting aside the impug n ed mutations, is af f irmed.

¶75

Th e appeal is accordingly dismisse d .

¶76

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶77

September 05, 2 025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶78

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes

¶79

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.11 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kitabo Devi and Others v. Shanti Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kitabo Devi and Others v. Shanti Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Muktiar Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh

Mukhtiar Kaur Vs Balbir Singh

Attar Singh etc. Vs Jagan Nath etc.

Nachhattar Kaur and Others Vs Harcharan Singh and Others

Ishwar Singh Vs Sanjay