Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2000 passed by learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land described in para- 1 of the plaint by virtue of a sale. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and an alternative relief of possession were also sought. It was asserted that the predecessor-in interest of the defendant made a sale in the plaintiff's favour and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land on 18th Jeth, 2013. Defendant filed an application for partition. The plaintiff enquired from Patwari Halqa and found that the revenue entries in the record of right were incorrect. The plaintiff asked the defendant to correct the wrong entry, but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The defendants opposed the suit by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, the suit being bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of the parties, the suit being barred by limitation, and the suit land having been partitioned by the competent authority. The plaintiff’s claim was denied on the merits. It was specifically denied that the defendants’ predecessor had sold the suit land to the plaintiff. It was asserted that the suit land was recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, replying defendant, proforma defendant and other co-sharers. Defendant filed a partition application on 08.01.1986, and the defendant’s share was separated. The plaintiff knew of the partition proceedings, but he chose not to participate. The plaintiff filed a false suit without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that the present suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 27.10.1999:

1. Whether the suit land was sold by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 18th Jeth, 2013, through a valid sale and the plaintiff was duly put in possession of the suit land? OPP.

2. If the aforesaid issue is proved, whether the plaintiff owner in possession of the suit land? OPP.

3. If the aforesaid issue is proved, whether the revenue entry showing the defendants as owners in possession is wrong and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

8. Relief.

6. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal representatives were brought on record.

7. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff’s legal representatives examined Chaman Lal (PW1), Sardaru (PW2), Bila Ram (PW3), Changu Ram (PW4), Sant Ram (PW5), and Chela Ram (PW6). The defendant examined himself (DW1), Ashwani Kumar (DW2), Gian Chand (DW3), Gian Chand, Patwari (DW4), and Daleep Singh (DW5).

8. Learned Trial Court held that the original plaintiff was a retired Revenue Officer. He was aware of the fact that any acquisition of the right had to be reported to the Patwari. He had not reported the sale to the Patwari for nearly 42 years. The suit land was partitioned by the competent authority. The possession was delivered to the owners after the partitio