IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.01.2026 Ajmer Kaur and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Smt. Rao (since deceased) through LR ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.S.Bhatti, Advocate for the appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiffs are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Court below; whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Sarwan Singh predecessor-in-interest of the defendant/respondent sold the land in dispute comprising in the present Khasra No. 3//18/1, to Milkha Singh predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs vide Registered sale deed dated 4.3.1959. It is submitted that although possession of the suit property was delivered immediately to the appellants, but the mutation could not be sanctioned as consolidation proceedings had commenced. However, possession of Milkha Singh was duly shown in the column of cultivation though as a tenant only. He was thus shown in possession in 'Misal Haqiat’ prepared in 1963-64(Ex.P-10) & Jamabandi Ex.P-12. This sale & possession are duly noticed in order of the consolidation officer dated 16.5.64 (Ex.P-13). The mutation subsequently entered was rejected on 3.12.80 only on the ground that it was an old matter.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the land-in-dispute carved out after consolidation is connected with the land purchased by Milkha Singh by Khatoni Istemal P-3 Khatuai Pamaish P-4. The previous Khatouni No. of P-3 is duly indicated in Khatuani Pamaish P-4, in respect of the land-in-dispute. It is contended that, therefore, appellants had duly proved before the learned Courts below that the present suit property comprising in khasra No. 3//18/1 was carved out of the original khasra no. 1033/647 after consolidation proceedings.

4. Learned counsel further submits that for conclusive proof of the matter, the appellant had moved an application for summoning the office Kanungo before the Trial Court, and for the same end an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was made before the lower appellate court, but they were rejected. The Trial court had remarked that the connecting documents of the two lands were already there on the record.

5. It is further submitted that till 26.10.1984, revenue record depicted the possession of the appellants upon the land in dispute. It is only thereafter that for the first time, the suit property was shown in the name of defendant No.2 Gurmel Singh son of Sarwan Singh. It is submitted that therefore, limitation does not run against a person in possession when he has been agitating for removal of wrong entries in the revenue record.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the judgments of the Courts below are based on conjectures and Surmises. The evidence has been misread and misconstrued. The findings given are arbitrary, the Courts below have failed to consider the material facts and went on insignificant matters. There are grave errors of law and procedure which touches the very jurisdiction of the Court. The case raises substantial question of law and call for interference in the second Appeal.

7. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and impugned judgments and decrees of Courts below set aside. 8. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case filed in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

9. It is the own pleaded case of the appellants in the plaint that prior to consolidation, suit land was comprised in khasra No. 1033/647 as was also mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1954-1955. As per the plaint, the suit land was owned by Sarwan Singh husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. It