suits relating to setting aside a fathers' alienation - limitation of 12 years - start running from the date when the alienee, takes possession of the suit property.

📌 *How to ascertain limitation for setting aside alienation made by father?*

 Coming to the last question, of limitation, which needs to be considered by this Court, (in the absence of any arguments addressed with regard to the admissibility of any photostat documents), i.e.  *whether the suit in the current lis was barred by limitation or not.*

*In this context, firstly I agree with learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that Article 109 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act lays down a limitation of 12 years, beyond which suits relating to setting aside a fathers' alienation of ancestral property cannot be filed.*

*As per the said Article, the period of limitation is to start running from the date when the alienee, (in this case the appellant), takes possession of the suit property.*

Thus, though the decree that the respondents-plaintiffs sought the nullification of is dated 15.05.1995, and seen from that date the suit was instituted about four months and 24 days after limitation would have run out,  *however, since the period of limitation is to start running from the date that the alienee takes possession of the suit property, I see no flaw in the arguments of learned counsel, that such possession at best can be deemed to have been taken by the alienee on the date that a mutation was entered in his favour qua the ownership of the suit land, on the basis of the decree in his favour. As a matter of fact, unless the contrary is specifically proved, possession would normally be taken after the entry of ownership is entered. Especially where the land alienated is by a co-sharer, in favour of another co-sharer, the earliest date that such deemed possession can be inferred, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, would be the sanction of the mutation entry. The mutation entry admittedly having been made on 19.12.1995, vide mutation No. 826, the limitation to institute the suit would end on 18.12.2007. Thus, the suit in the current lis having been instituted on 09.10.2007, was within limitation by about two months, no evidence having been led to the contrary to show even to this Court, that possession qua the share of Rohtash was already with the appellant earlier.*

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH*

RSA-1725-2016 (O&M)

Decided On: 02.06.2017

  *Amrit Lal Vs.Savitri and Ors.*

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

*Amol Rattan Singh, J.*

Citation: *AIR 2017 P&H 130*