The court underscored the binding nature of public assessment records in determining property ownership and affirmed that limitation laws preclude late claims absent timely objections.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Sudhanshu Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No. 1124 of 2006 claiming a decree for declaration that he should be held and declared to be absolute owner in occupation of the suit property after holding the defendant having no right, title and interest therein. The property was described as bearing Municipal No. 5235 (6 to 11) old and new number 21/142/6 to 11 shown by letters A, B, C, D, E, F and G in the map annexed to the plaint and bounded as described in the plaint.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment and order dated 29.07.2013. Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2013 filed against the decree of dismissal has also been dismissed on 24.07.2015.

4. The instant appeal was admitted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 02.09.2015 on the following substantial question of law:

"i) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below is vitiated on account of misreading and misconstruction of the sale deed, according to which only part of the house property had been transferred, whereas both the courts below have proceeded on the assumption that the entire house had been transferred?"

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his father namely Dwarika Prasad Bhargava was owner of the disputed property and by a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1962, he sold only part of the property i.e. from Serial No. 1 to 5 which was existent in the nature of certain kothas, however, in the year 2005, the defendant- purchaser got the mutation of the entire property i.e. property No. 1 to 11 done and when the plaintiff came to know about such entries, he filed the suit in question. Submission is that the sale deed which was in Urdu and transliterated copy whereof was filed before the courts below and has also been annexed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC depicting the property transferred as bearing No. 5235 (wrongly mentioned as No. 5253), clearly shows that only properties from serial Nos. 1 to 5 were transferred and, therefore, mutation entries made in relation to property Nos. 6 to 11 were prejudicial to the appellant's interest and, hence, the suit was filed. Submission is that both the courts below have failed to carefully peruse the sale deed and have erred in dislodging the claim for declaration.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the name of Shri Dwarika Prasad Bhargava was recorded in the assessment record produced by the defendant in relation to property No. 5235/1, 5235/2, 5235/3, 5235/4 and 5235/5 in the assessment record pertaining to year 1954-1959 and when the assessment records were finalized after sale, property was renumbered and in the assessment pertaining to 1964-1969, the name of the respondent was entered from 5235/1 to 5235/11. It is also urged that the assessment record having been finalized in the year 1969 and the vendor remained alive till 1984, no objections has been raised by him, the suit filed in the year 2006 was barred by limitation as rightly held by the trial court. Further, argument is that the purpose of the sale mentioned in the sale deed itself was that the vendor was residing in Mathura whereas the property was situated in Agra and he was unable to take care of the same and hence, decided to sell the property when he was getting appropriate sale consideration. He submits that both the courts below not only perused the sale deeds but also the assessment records and have arrived at a conclusion that the entire property was sold by the appellant's father.

7. Record of the courts' below is before this Court and has been thoroughly perused so as to answer the substantial question of law framed above. The determination of the aforesaid question would be dependent upon not only the recitals contained in the sale deed but also