ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Plaintiffs-Appellants are in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by both the courts below dismissing the suit filed by them for declaration that the appellants are owners in possession of the suit land and mutation no.2053 sanctioned on the basis of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer is valid and binding.

2. In the considered view of this court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-

(i) What is the difference between a suit for cancellation of a written instrument and suit for declaration of status or right?

(ii) Whether a suit filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession without challenging any written instrument can be held to be barred by time without examining the facts which gave rise to the suit?

3. Facts of this case clearly prove that a small mistake by the Consolidation Authorities can result into a long drawn litigation between the parties.

4. Consolidation of Holdings as per the provisions of East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act