The right to sue for a declaration of ownership does not solely depend on the change of entry in the revenue record. The cause of action arises when the defendants seek to dispossess the plaintiffs, not when the mutation is cancelled.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgments passed by both the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by them seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land.

2. In the considered view of this Court, the question which needs adjudication is "Whether a wrong entry in the revenue record necessarily give rise to a cause of action for the purpose of calculating limitation for filing a civil suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land?"

3. Parties are being referred to by their name or original status in the suit.

FACTS:-

Dispute in the present litigation is with regard to mutual exchange of land comprised in two parcels of land. Hence, it would be appropriate to refer both the parcels as Table-A and Table-B. The land comprised in Table-A is as under:-

Khewat No.206/210, Khatoni No.384, 385, 386, Khasra No.62/24/2(1-16), 63/2(8-0), 81/1(8-0), 81/1/2(1-0), 62/25(8-0), 82/1/1(0-7), 2/1(4-19), 2/2(2-9), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 5 (8-0), 6(7-8), 7(8-0), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 10(7-2), 12/2(4-4), 13 (8-0), 14(8-0), 15(7-8), 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 18(8-0), 19/1(4-4), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), 24/1(4-0), 83/6(0-10).

Whereas land comprised in Table-B is as under:-

Khewat No. 26/24, Khatoni No.45,46,47, Khasra No.79/23, 8(2-4), 76/1/1(3-3), 10/1(6-16), 20(8-0), 21(8-0), 77/25(8-0), 67/18/2(5-8), 19(0-8), 22(6-16), 76/9/2(5-7), 11 (7-6), 12(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8-0), 27(1-12) and khewat No.184/188 min, khatoni No.345, 348 khasra no.90/5(8-0), 9/1(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 20(8-0), 67/25/1(1-15), 91/2(8-0), 3(8-0), 4(8-0), 12(8-0), 91/19(8-0), 22/1(6-4).

Janak Singh, Ajmat Singh, brothers alongwith one Nirmala were owners in possession of land comprised in Table No.B. Nirmala was owner to the extent of half share whereas Janak Singh and Ajmat Singh, both brothers, were jointly owners to the extent of remaining half share. Land comprised in Table-A was owned by the plaintiffs, Dal Singh etc. It is claimed that in the year 1958, land comprised in Tables A and B were exchanged. Subsequent to the exchange, Smt. Nirmala, Janak Singh and Ajmat Singh became owners in possession of land under Table-A whereas the plaintiffs became owners of land comprised in Table-B. The respective parties were put in possession. However, mutation entry with regard to exchange could not be sanctioned immediately. However, on 02.10.1974, vide mutation No. 1872, entry with regard to mutation of exchange of land inter se was duly sanctioned. There is another part of facts which are required to be noticed. Ajmat Singh's daughter Kirnu and his nephew Jasmer Singh got transferred the land belonging to Smt. Nirmala pursuance to a judgment and decree dated 29.04.1972. Smt. Nirmala successfully challenged the aforesaid judgment in a separate Civil Suit which was decreed on 28.03.1981. Thus, the effect of judgment and decree dated 29.04.1972 stood erased. Smt. Nirmala Devi executed a Will bequeathing her share in the land in favour of Rattan Singh son of Jamadar, Mahavir Singh son of Mohan Singh and Sushila Devi daughter of Rattan Singh. After the judgment and decree dated 28.03.1981, Revenue Authorities sanctioned the mutation No. 2087 in favour of Nirmala Devi. On her death, mutation No.2224 was sanctioned in favour of Rattan Singh, Sushila Devi and Mahavir Singh. Rattan Singh, Sushila Devi and Mahavir Singh thereafter transferred their entire share of land received from Nirmala Devi in favour of defendant Nos.l to 3 namely Ajmat Singh son of Faggu, Kanwarjit Singh and Raj Kumar, sons of Bhagirath. However, while sanctioning mutation Nos.2087 and 2224, revenue authorities committed an error in sanctioning the mutation of land in favour of Nirmala Devi and subsequently in favour of Rattan Singh etc. with respect to land comprised in Table-B in place of Table-A. The plaintiffs on coming to know of this fact, filed a suit for declaration that the mutation Nos.2087 and 2224 are