48 years old litigation, finally gets SC burial
New Delhi, Apr l2 (UNI) The Supreme Court has finalised a long innings of litigation that began with a case in Himachal Pradesh Civil Court in 1959, deciding that the lawsuit was time barred.
A bench comprising Justice B P Singh and Justice Altamas Kabir dismissed the appeal filed by one Jagat Ram challenging the High Court's decision to uphold the trial court's order which had set aside Mr Ram's property related lawsuit as time barred.
Sunder, the original owner of disputed property made a gift deed favouring his daughter Manshan on June 23, 1920. He died in 1941.
In 1945 Sunder's widow Kirpi, filed a case against Manshan saying that she would enjoy the property during her life time and after her death the property would go to the daughter.
But in 1958 Kirpi adopted and executed an adoption deed in favour of Varinder Parkash her second daughter Sita Devi's son .
Manshan challenging the development filed a case in 1959 asking for cancellation of gift deed and a declaration that adoption was illegal.
The court decreed in her favour in 1960. But Kirpi died in 1967.
Varinder Parkash challenged the decree in high court but his appeal was dismissed in November 1981. Manshan filed a suit for recovery of the land in December 1982. The Trial Court dismissed this suit as well in June 1986 on grounds of limitation.
The first appellate court however, reversed trial court's findings on September 19,1991. But, the High Court in a second appeal restored trial court's holding that the suit was time barred.
The high court said the respondent Ravinder Parkash had perfected his title by adverse possession after enjoying unchallenged possession for more than 12 years. The suit for recovery of possessions was filed in 1982, during the pendency of appeals in earlier suit the plaintiff, never asked for possession of the suit land.
The apex court finally pulling curtains on the roughly half century long litigation, upheld the high court judgement saying "it found no reason to set-aside the judgment of the high court,".
UNI/AKS/SC OM VC1225