IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1418 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.12.2008 Smt. Savitri ....Appellant VERSUS Rajbir and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the present suit for possession of 1/4 share of land measuring 44 kanal 2 marlas i.e. 11 kanal land comprised in killa No.89//6/2(1-2), 14(3-16), 15(8-0), 16/2(6-10), 17(6-0), 90//24/1(2-16), 17/1(1-5), 90//23/1(6-18) 22(8-0) situated in village Kharkari, Tehsil and District Hisar. The plaintiff had challenged the registered sale deed No.2622 dated 10.02.1975 executed in favour of Lalman and the mutation No.1072 dated 01.05.1975 on the ground that she was minor at that time when the sale deed was effected by her mother. In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken that suit was time barred. Besides, it was urged on merits that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the present suit because she had filed a suit earlier qua the suit land titled as Savitri Vs. Lalman, which was dismissed and the factum of the earlier suit had not been disclosed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was barred by principle of resjudicata. Issue No.2 was as to whether the suit was time barred at the time of filing. Both the Courts below had dismissed the suit recording a concurrent findings of fact that the suit of plaintiff was time barred because plaintiff had R.S.A. No.1418 of 2004 (O&M) -2- become major in the year 1980 and had to file the suit within three years from the date of attaining majority. It is a fact that present suit had been filed on 19.01.1995. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit is not time barred because the plaintiff had no knowledge about the sale deed. Therefore, the limitation is to start from the date of knowledge. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his assistance. Section 6 of the Limitation Act deals with the period where a person is entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the specified therefore in the third column of the Schedule. The third column of the schedule has article 60 which provides that limitation to file a suit in case of transfer of property made by the guardian of ward is 3 years from the date of attaining the majority. In present case, since the plaintiff has attained majority on 10.04.1980, the limitation to file the suit was within 3 years thereafter. The present suit has been filed on 19.01.2005. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly held that the suit is time barred and can not be entertained. Dismissed. December 23, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) ashish JUDGE