The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely challenge to mutation orders, the presumption of truth enjoyed by revenue entries, and the applicability of Article 58 of the Limitation Act in instituting a suit seeking a declaratory decree for setting aside mutation orders.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff''s suit for rendition of a declaratory decree in respect of his being entitled for being declared to be exclusive owner of the suit property or in the alternative his being declared to be in exclusive possession thereof, stood, under concurrent pronouncements recorded thereon by both the learned Courts below, hence, dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, which he had inherited from his father Sh. Kirpa Ram, who died in the year 1962, leaving behind the plaintiff as sole legal heir. It is claimed that Smt. Roshani Devi, defendant No.3 was legally wedded wife of late Sh. Jaunsar, who was the real brother of his father Kirpa Ram. Consequently, the defendants, who are son, daughter and widow of his uncle Jaunsar, have no right, title or interest in the suit property, which was owned by his father kirpa Ram. It is averred that Roshni Devi-defendant No.3, from the loin of her husband Jaunsar, gave birth to three daughters, namely, Manglan Devi, Maya and Bheema and two sons Keshav and Narinder, who all except Keshav, Manglan Devi and Narinder, jointly inherited the property of Jaunsar. Consequently, it is claimed that mutation of inheritance of property of Kirpa Ram was wrongly sanctioned in favour of the defendants along with the plaintiff in equal shares. Plaintiff was minor at the time of sanctioning of the mutation and he had no knowledge of wrong mutation of his father Kirpa Ram. Now, the defendants, on the basis of wrong mutation, started unlawful interference over the suit land owned and possessed by the plaintiff and are bent upon to take forcible possession of it, without any right, title or interest.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, it is averred that Kirpa Ram died in the year 1962 and plaintiff alone was not the sole legal heir of Kirpa Ram, at the time of his death. It is averred that Roshni Devi, defendant No.3 was married to Jaunsar and two daughters Maya and Bheema were born out of the wedlock. After death of his brother Jaunsar on 25.1.1958, Kirpa Ram solemnised customary marriage of ''Jhanjara'' with Roshni Devi. Defendants No.1 and 2 were born from the wedlock of Roshni Devi and Kirpa Ram. Thus, it is averred that they have, as such, rightly, succeeded to the property of Kirpa Ram along with the plaintiff. The mutation was rightly sanctioned, which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is now estopped to challenge the same. The parties are in peaceful possession as per their share in the suit land. Further, it is claimed that the suit is hopelessly time barred, as filed beyond the period of three years from the date of attaining age of majority. Objections qua act and conduct, valuation, jurisdiction, cause of action, non joinder of necessary parties and maintainability were also taken.

4. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/respondents, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is sole legal heir of deceased Kirpa Ram and entitled to succeed his property exclusively, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is the sole owner in possession of suit land, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the mutation of suit land sanctioned in favour of the defendants is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP.

4. Whether the defendants makes unlawful interference in the ownership and possession of plaintiff over suit land, as alleged? OPP.

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time barred, as alleged?OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file