Mr. Amit Rawal, J.: - C.M.No.426-C of 2014

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Document, Annexure P-1 (Colly) is taken on record.

RSA No.1604 of 2012 (O&M)

2. The appellant-plaintiffs are in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court, whereby, the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration, has been set aside.

3. Mr.Sunny Sagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they are joint owners of the land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas as per the jamabandi for the year 1995-96 situated at Jagpur, HB No.423, Tehsil and District Ludhiana to the exclusion of defendants and for declaration that alleged sale deeds dated 02.01.1996, 13.08.1991 and 27.05.1992 executed by defendants No.4, 9 and 10, being null, void and not binding upon the legal rights as the aforementioned sale deeds have been executed on the basis of the wrong entry in the revenue record by branding the sellers as “Fard Badar” and also sought the permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any manner illegally and forcibly/dispossessing, except in due course of law. He further submitted that Gurdial Singh, grandfather of the plaintiffs had filed a suit for pre-emption against Arjan Singh-deceased, grandfather of defendants No.5 to 9, father of defendant No.4 and deceased Nirmal Singh and on the basis of the compromise, the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.07.1967. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.07.1967, held that parties are entitled to the land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas in favour of Arjan Singh and the balance ancestral land was held in the ownership of the plaintiffs. However, deceased Arjan Singh applied for mutation of the aforementioned land and the said mutation proceedings vide order dated 29.05.1978 were dismissed by the Assistant Collector Grade I and the same had attained finality. However, in the year 1991, in connivance with the revenue officials, the legal heirs of Arjan Singh, i.e., Darshan Singh, father of defendants No.5 to 9 and his brother deceased Nirmal Singh and Lachhman Singh obtained Fard Badar of the land yet failed to get the decree of the Court affected within 12 years stipulated period. Fard Badar cannot foist upon the respondent-defendants ownership/title, thus, they could not sell the land vide aforementioned sale deeds. The plaintiffs had exclusive possession of the land measuring 8 kanals 18 marlas comprised of khasra No.40/4 out of total khata No.45-47 and filed the suit for permanent injunction, wherein, the trial Court granted the interim injunction which was confirmed against defendants No.1 to 3. Gurdial Singh deceased, grandfather of plaintiffs, had executed a registered and valid Will in favour of the plaintiffs regarding movable and immovable property. Since the defendants asserting in the claim of title, which necessitated them to file present suit. He further submitted that the trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence found that the alleged sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 by codefendants on the basis of the alleged Fard Badar have rightly been set aside as not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs but the lower Appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation. As per Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, cause of action only arise when title is under cloud, in essence, mere entry of mutation in the name of a particular party would not furnish a cause of action to file the suit. The suit was filed on 09.03.1999 and the mutation allegedly was affected in the year 1998. He further submits that the lower Appellate Court wrongly applied the provisions of Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. He further submitted that the limitation will not run