The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and the time limitation under the Limitation Act in property disputes.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. Delay of 22 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

2. Having lost before both the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, dated 10.1.2013 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed.

2. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case as narrated therein are that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of village Chatia Aulia, District Sonepat. It was pleaded therein that the sale deed dated 22.7.1999 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 was illegal, null and void. Defendant No.2 was owner in possession of shamlat land including the plot measuring 450 square yards. Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 got passed a resolution dated 27.4.1995. Further, the Director of Panchayat, Haryana vide order dated 29.9.1997 directed defendant No.1 to deposit amount of the plot in question at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard. The said order was challenged before this Court by Shri Bir Singh and Shri Dharambir and this Court vide order dated 29.5.2001 directed defendant No.1 to make the payment of the said plot @ Rs. 200/- per square yard. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Upon notice, the defendants filed separate written statements raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded by defendant No.1 that he was in actual physical possession of the suit land since the time of his forefathers and defendant No.2 passed a resolution in his favour considering his long possession over the suit land. As per the directions of this Court in Bir Singh's case, defendant No.1 had deposited the amount in the account of defendant No.2. Further, the mutation of the plot in question had already been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 pleaded in its written statement that resolution was passed in favour of defendant No.1 considering his long possession over the suit land and that defendant No.1 was using the said land as owner in possession. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the sale deed dated 22.7.1999 in respect of suit property is wrong and illegal? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the present court has no jurisdiction to try the present? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by principles of resjudicata? OPD

8. Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD

9. Relief.

Additional Issue:

Whether the resolution dated 27.4.1995 passed by defendant No.2 is wrong, illegal, null and void? OPD.

4. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2013 holding that defendant No.1 was using the suit land and the sale deed, Ex.P1, of the plot in question had already been executed on 26.7.1999 by defendant No.2 in favour of respondent-defendant No.1. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.1.2013 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree dated 10.1.2013, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court who finding no illegality and infirmity in the findings of the trial Court, dismissed the same vide ju