JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal under paragraph 32 of the H. P. Courts Order arises out of the decree and judgment dated 10-10-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla Sessions Division, at Bilaspur, whereby the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 27-3-1984 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, was affirmed. The Sub-Judge 1st Class Ghumarwin, had dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff and denied her the declaration that she is exclusive owner of the land measuring 46 1 Bighas situated in village Kosrian, Pargana Bachhretu, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, as described in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (hereinafter called the land in dispute) and that the first respondent-defendant Pano Devi does not have any share in it and the revenue entry recording her owner of one-half share is wrong. 2. The case set up by the appellant-plaintiff was that her mother, Smt. Karju, who was impleaded as pro-forma defendant in the suit, was owner in possession of the land in dispute. The appellant-plaintiff being her only daughter was residing with her. Sh^ wanted to bequeath the land in dispute by way of gift to the appellant-plaintiff for which purpose she took the assistance of the second respondent-defendant, Sh. Kishan Singh, who was posted as Patwari in her village at the relevant time The allegations of the appellant-plaintiff were that respondent-defendant Kishan Singh with the connivance of the Petition writer got the gift deed dated 12-3-1960 (Ex. DW-4/A) scribed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and his wife, respondent defendent Pano Devi, in equal share and got it executed from Smt. Karju by playing fraud and mis-representation upon her. The Gift-deed was also got registered from the Sub-Registrar on 19-3-1960 and the mutation (Ex. P-Q) in respect thereof was entered in the revenue record on 24-2 1961 despite objections raised by Smt. Karju. She had also filtd an appeal against the order of mutation but failed Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff filed civil suit on 13-11-1964. 3. The respondents-defendants resisted the suit and denied that the gift deed, Ex. DW-4/A, was got executed from the donor, Smt. Karju, by exercising fraud and mis-representation. According to them, she had gifted the land in dispute in equal shares in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant No.1 of her own sweet will. 3. The respondents-defendants resisted the suit and denied that the gift deed, Ex. DW-4/A, was got executed from the donor, Smt. Karju, by exercising fraud and mis-representation. According to them, she had gifted the land in dispute in equal shares in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant No.1 of her own sweet will. They also took a number of preliminary objections, inter alia, that the appellant-plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the suit and also that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 4. Though the trial Court held that the Gift-deed, Ex. DW-4/A, made in favour of respondent-defendant, Pano Devi, was a result of fraud and Smt. Karju, who appeared as PW-2, had no intention to bequeath one-half of her land in dispute to Pano Devi who was a stranger, yet, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff did not have any locus standi to file it and that it was instituted beyond the period of limitation. The first appellate Court, without going into merits of the case, has dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court that the appellant-plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and that it was instituted beyond the period of limitation. Hence the present Regular Second Appeal 5. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sh. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, has referred to Shravan Goba Mahajan and others v. Kashiram Devji and others, AIR 1927 Bom 384 and Pradhana v. Amin Chand and others, AIR 1977 HP 94, to urge that being the daughter and only legal heir of Smt. Karju, the donor, the appellant-plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit to challenge the gift deed Ex. DW-4/A obtained from her mother Smt. Karju by exercising fraud and mis-representation. On the other hand, Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has supported the judgments of the Courts below and has argued that during the life time of Smt. Karju, the donor, the appellant-plaintiff had no right to challenge the gift Ex. DW4/A as she had no right and title in the land in dispute during the life time of her mother, Smt. Karju. Moreover, how could she challenge the gift deed by which she herself had derived title over half of the land in dispute. 6. DW4/A as she had no right and title in the land in dispute during the life time of her mother, Smt. Karju. Moreover, how could she challenge the gift deed by which she herself had derived title over half of the land in dispute. 6. This Court find no substance in the submission of Sh. K.D. Sood. The appellant-plaintiff might be interested party as she was the legal heir had her mother died intestate but during her life time she could not challenge the gift made by her mother on the ground that it was got executed from her by fraud and mis-representation. It was for the donor Smt. Karju to assail the gift if she was victim of fraud and mis-representation as alleged by the appellant-plaintiff and also affirmed by Smt Karju in her statement made in the Court when she appeared as PW 2. She had objected to the attestation of mutation and had filed appeal against the order of mutation but thereafter kept quiet. She did not care to put in appearance in the civil suit despite service on her as pro forma defendant and was proceeded against ex-parte. No explanation has come forth in the plaint or in the evidence why she did not file a suit challenging the Gift-deed. Sh. Gupta is right that the appellant-plaintiff cannot challenge the Gift-deed as she herself has derived title over half of the land in dispute by the same document. Had Smt. Karju filed civil suit, the appellant-plaintiff could pursue it further after the death of Smt. Karju but during her life time she had no cause of action to challenge the gift on the ground that it was obtained by the respondents-defendants by exercising fraud and mis-representation. It is not a case in which the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the status of her mother to execute the gift. The ratio of the judgments cited by Sh K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is not applicable to the present case. Both the Courts below have corectly come to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. 7. So far the point of limitation is concerned, Sh. K.D. Sood has argued that since the appellant-plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute, she could ignore the gift-deed Ex. Both the Courts below have corectly come to the conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. 7. So far the point of limitation is concerned, Sh. K.D. Sood has argued that since the appellant-plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute, she could ignore the gift-deed Ex. DW-4/A by which half of the land in dispute was given to respondent-defendant Smt. Pano and also the mutation thereof till her rights were threatened. However, this Court finds that this argument has also been raised to be rejected. It is not in dispute that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for setting aside an instrument is three years when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled became known. In the present case, as held hereinabove, only Smt. Karju, the donor of the Gift-deed Ex. DW-4/A, could be the plaintiff and she could file a suit within three years either from 19-3-1960 or 24-2-1961 when she had acquired the knowledge that the respondent-defendant No.2 had got one-half of the land in dispute gifted in favour of his wife respondent-defendant No.1, in view of her admission that she had objected to the registration of the Gift-deed as well as attestation of mutation before the authorities concerned. So far the appellant-plaintiff is concerned, she had no cause of action to file the suit during the life time of her mother, Smt. Karju, as such, it is not relevant that her suit filed on 13-11-1964 was beyond the period of limitation of three years. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and it is rejected. Costs easy. Appeal rejected.