Dispute over ancestral land inheritance dismissed as time-barred under Limitation Act

The plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership of 2/3 share in the estate was dismissed as barred by limitation by the Sub-Judge, affirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court. The dispute involved ancestral land inheritance and remarriage customs, particularly a 'Karewa' marriage. Despite a successful appeal leading to a reversal, a subsequent suit for possession was filed. However, the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was denied as the withdrawal of an earlier suit did not meet the criteria, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for being time-barred.

---

---

Issues:
1. Suit for declaration of ownership dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Dispute over ancestral land inheritance and remarriage customs.
3. Appeal allowed against initial judgment; subsequent suit filed for possession.
4. Second appeal filed challenging reversal of judgment.
5. Withdrawal of earlier suit and filing of fresh suit.
6. Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership of 2/3 share in the estate of Dalip Singh was dismissed as barred by limitation by the Sub-Judge, affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The dispute arose from the ancestral land originally belonging to Gulab Singh, leading to a legal battle over inheritance rights and remarriage customs, specifically a 'Karewa' marriage between the widow and her deceased husband's brother.

2. After an initial dismissal, the plaintiffs appealed successfully against the judgment, leading to a reversal in August 1993. Subsequently, a fresh suit was filed by the plaintiffs to reclaim possession of the land, alleging forcible dispossession by the defendant. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether a widow forfeits her rights through a 'Karewa' marriage.

3. Following various legal proceedings, including withdrawal of an earlier suit with permission to file a fresh suit, the plaintiffs faced a challenge regarding the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to exclude the time spent in the earlier suit, but the courts found that the withdrawal was not based on formal defects or grounds for a fresh suit, thus dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

4. The judges emphasized that for Section 14 of the Limitation Act to apply, it was crucial to demonstrate that the earlier proceedings were related to the same matter in issue and pursued in good faith in a court unable to entertain it due to jurisdictional issues or similar causes. As the plaintiffs failed to establish such circumstances, the exclusion of time under Section 14 was deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---