The cause of action for seeking ownership declaration arises when there is a threat to title, not at the time of execution of sale deed or mutation.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below dismissing their suit for declaration to the effect that Puran Chand plaintiff is the owner in possession of 1/4th share in the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 1075 situated in the area of Hansi.

2. Brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that one firm Nanu Ram Mat Ram was a lessee of land comprising in Khasra Nos. 9719 and 9721 new Nos. 1975 and 1077 since 7.3.1946. Partners of the said firm were Nanu Ram and Paras Ram sons of Ghashi Ram as members of Bindaban Mamraj Mal HUF as also Sangat Singh son of Ganga Ram, Mat son of Mamraj Singh and Puran Chand son of Sarup Singh was members of firm HUF Mamraj Sarup Singh. Said firm had a cotton ginning factory which was on plot Nos. 1075 as well as 1077 bearing of old khasra No. 9719 and 97821. The firm consisting of partners Paras Ram, Puran Chand and Mam Raj purchased land comprising in Khasra No. 1077 vide registered sale deed dated 23.2.1966 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- whereas owners of Khasra No. 1075 were Muslims who migrated to Pakistan after partition. Khasra No,1075 was taken on yearly lease of Rs. 150/- by the partners.

3. In 1949 Nanu Ram and Paras Ram partitioned their HUF and the share of Nanu Ram came to Paras Ram and a new partnership deed was executed and the firm name was changed to Mat Ram Paras Ram. Paras Ram became partner in his individual capacity. A partnership deed was executed on 8.6.1949. After the death of Sangat Singh, new partnership deed was executed on 1.4.1956. Sangat Singh has died issueless, who was member of HUF Mamraj Sarup Singh. As per this partnership, Mat Ram son of Mamraj Mal and Puran Chand son of Sarup Singh to the extent 1/4th share each along with Paras Ram son of Ghasi Ram as partner of 1/2 share, became partners of firm Mat Ram Paras Ram. In 1963, this HUF firm was partitioned including the factory. Thereafter, a partnership was constituted as partners in their individual capacity with the old firm name i.e. Mat Ram Paras Ram. Thus, Mat Ram and Puran Chand had 1/4th share each whereas Paras Ram had half share in this firm Mat Ram Paras Ram.

4. Another partnership deed was executed on 27.5.1966 after the death of Paras Ram. In the said partnership deed, the share of Mat Ram and Puran Chand was 1/4th each as in the previous partnership whereas Shri Krishna as Kartar represented the other half share of Paras Ram.

5. Since Khasra No. 1075 vested in Custodian on account of the migration of Muslims, therefore, the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 1075 was purchased in the sum of Rs. 3000/- from Custodian Department vide conveyance deed dated 29.4.1968. It is the claim of the plaintiff that it is the firm who has purchased the said property and the sale consideration was deposited by the firm. However, in the conveyance deed which was executed on 29.4.1968, his name has not been mentioned although he has paid his share of Rs. 750/- which is clear from the record of the firm including Rokar Bahi (Cash book) and Khata Bahi (Ledger account). On these facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 20.12.1976.

6. The suit was contested by Mat Ram who denied that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 750/-. It was alleged that the accounts of the firm are in possession of the plaintiff, therefore, any entry made in such account is not binding on the rights of the defendants. He has asserted that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- from his own account.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/4th share of the suit land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas?OPP

2. Whether the conveyance deed dated 29.4.1969 registered on 8.6.1968 and mutation No. 3052 dated 18.5.1969 about the suit land are illegal, null and void and has got no effect on the rights of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint?