245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1737-2013 (O&M)

Decided on : 23.03.2026 Harjit Singh ….Appellant Versus Mohinder Kaur & ors. ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *****

Present :- Mr. Aditya Dassuar, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-6500-C-2022 This is an application for bringing on record the LRs of respondent No.2-Smt. Surinder Kaur (deceased) who is stated to have unfortunately expired on 11.09.2020. The application is supported by death certificate.

For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Person mentioned in para No.4 of the application is impleaded as LRs of the deceased-respondent No.2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Main case

1 Appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit, i.e. the appellant as plaintiff and respondents No.1 to 4 as defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 5.

2 Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 6 kanal 4 marlas as detailed out in the head note of the plaint. He further sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property.

3 As per the case of the plaintiff, one Didar Singh was co-sharer in joint land measuring 97 Karnal 18 Marlas . He executed sale deed dated 18.08.1987 in favour of plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.20,000/-. Possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff continues to be owner in possession of same since then. However, mutation qua the suit property could not be sanctioned and the name of Didar Singh continued to be reflected in the revenue records. The suit land was partitioned. Share of the plaintiff was wrongly mutated in the name of the defendants, i.e. legal heirs of Didar Singh. Plaintiff thus sought decree of declaration with the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4 Suit was contested by the defendants. Joint ownership of Didar Singh qua suit land was admitted. However, sale deed propounded by the plaintiff claimed to have been executed by Didar Singh was denied.

Defendants claimed that the sale deed dated 18.08.1987 propounded by the plaintiff was result of fraud.

5 The Court of the First Instance framed following issues :-

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land?

OPP.

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

OPP.

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.

(5) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?

OPD (6) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.

(7) Relief.”

6 While recording findings on issues No.1, 2 & 3 the Court of the First Instance held that there was merely a stray entry qua possession of the plaintiff in the revenue records which was not sufficient to prove his possession over the suit property. Trial Court accordingly answered issues No.1, 2 & 3 against the plaintiff further holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale deed.

7 While deciding issue No.6, the Court of First Instance held that the suit was barred by limitation, as the plaintiff failed to explain as to how the suit instituted in 2004 can be held to be within the prescribed period of limitation once plaintiff admits that he approached revenue authorities for mutation of suit property in the year 1987.

8 Unsuccessful plaintiff preferred appeal. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issues No. 1, 2, and 3, but maintained the findings recorded by the Court of First Instance on Issue No. 6, observing as under