IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 DES RAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS …..Appellant Vs DASONDI RAM (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate the appellants.

******

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Plain(cid:29)ff of the case is aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded against him by the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declara(cid:29)on regarding property in dispute filed by him against defendant-Dasondi Ram (respondent herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.07.2016, and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 11.09.2018.

2. Perusal of the paper book would reveal that plain(cid:29)ff claimed declara(cid:29)on to the effect that he was in joint possession to the extent of 198/2990 share in the total holding measuring 149 kanals 10 marla comprised in Khewat No.6, Khatauni Nos. 9, 10 and 11, as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in Village Naushera, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, a7er purchasing 4 kanal of land from defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 11.06.1990; and that defendant No.1 was in joint possession to the extent of 1001/5980 share.

3. As per the case put forth by the plain(cid:29)ff, he had purchased 4 kanals of land out of land arising 6 kanal 3 marla comprised in Khewat No.2 Khatauni No.4, rectangle No. 23 Killa No.22/1/1 for considera(cid:29)on of ₹10,000/- from defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 11.06.1990, but when he went to the Patwari for ge;ng the muta(cid:29)on sanc(cid:29)oned on the basis of sale deed, it transpired that defendant No.1 had already sold 14 kanal of land including the aforesaid Killa to defendant Nos. 22 to 24 vide sale deed dated 13.02.1989. It was(cid:1)claimed by the plain(cid:29)ff that even if the sale deed in his favour pertains to specific Khasra number out of joint holding, it is nothing but sale out of the share of the vendor-defendant No.1 and as such, plain(cid:29)ff’s share was increased to the extent of 4 kanal in joint holding; whereas, the share of defendant No.1 was correspondingly decreased by 4 kanal. It was also claimed that earlier plain(cid:29)ff had filed a suit to rec(cid:29)fy the revenue record, but the same was dismissed on technical grounds and the appeal was dismissed with liberty to file fresh suit by removing the technical defects.

4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit on various grounds including the bar of limita(cid:29)on and principle of res judicata.

5. A7er framing the issues and taking in account evidence produced by the par(cid:29)es, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the Appellate Court upheld the findings.

6. Assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-plain(cid:29)ff has been non-suited on the ground that his suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 and 3 CPC and that suit was also barred by limita(cid:29)on. It is argued that the previous suit was dismissed on account of technical defects and that Appellate Court had granted permission to file fresh suit by removing the technical defects and as such, present suit was not barred under Order II Rule 2 and 3 CPC. It is further the conten(cid:29)on of learned counsel that since the suit is based upon (cid:29)tle, therefore, bar of the limita(cid:29)on was not applicable.

7. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and finds no merits in any of the conten(cid:29)ons as raised by him.

8. It will be relevant to reproduce the observa(cid:29)ons made by the First Appellate Court, based upon the apprecia(cid:29)on of evidence produced on file, which read as under:-

“18. Plain(cid:29)ff appellant has come up with a specific and categoric case that he has purchased 4 kanals of land out of Khewat No. 4, Rect. No. 23 and Killa No. 22/1/1 by specific Khasra numbers vide sale deed dated