A suit for declaration of title challenging mutation entries is barred by limitation when the plaintiffs have been aware of said entries for decades and previously acted upon them by participating in property transactions based on those very records.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for declaration - Property inheritance and mutation - Limitation period - Suit for declaration must be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the cause of action - Limitation cannot be extended indefinitely and parties are estopped by their own conduct where they have previously acted upon the impugned mutation entries by purchasing shares from parties whose title they subsequently challenge. (Paras 22, 23)

(B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - Mere inheritance of property from a father does not automatically render it ancestral coparcenary property - The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the ancestral nature of the property, and in absence of evidence, the presumption stands in favor of non-ancestral status. (Paras 17, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed that suit property was ancestral joint family property and sought a declaration identifying them as owners of a 5/6th share, challenging existing revenue records and mutation entries made decades ago. The appellants had previously acted on those same mutation records by purchasing a 1/3rd share from one of the co-sharers in 1978. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding the property's ancestral character unproven and the suit barred by limitation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appellants failed to lead evidence proving the suit property was ancestral coparcenary property. Furthermore, the Court found the suit time-barred, as the appellants were aware of the mutation since 1978 and were estopped by their own conduct in previous transactions.

Issues: Whether the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property and whether the suit for declaration of title was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal presumption is that property is non-ancestral unless proven otherwise by the claimant. Admissions by conduct, such as acting upon mutation entries in earlier property transactions, estop a party from later challenging the validity of such entries after the limitation period has elapsed.

Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial and appellate court proceedings regarding disputed property shares. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. appellants contend property is ancestral and therefore challenge mutation-based limitation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court rules burden of proving ancestral status lies with the plaintiffs, which they failed to meet. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. suit is time-barred and plaintiffs are estopped by prior consistent conduct. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

***

211

The plaintiffs are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners of 5/6th share in the suit land measuring 101K-15M; AND for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. In order to correctly appreciate the dispute at hand, following pedigree table shall be useful: -

Buta Singh
Mastan Singh
Karam Singh	Bhagwan Kaur	Gurdial Kaur
		Amar Singh (Def.No.1) Raghbir Singh (Def.No.2)
Joginder Singh (Pff.No.1) Avtar Singh (Pff.No.2) Randhir Singh (Pff.No.3) Zora Singh (Pff.No.4)

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellants that the suit land is Ancestral Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. The suit property was inherited by Mastan Singh from his father Buta Singh. On the death of Mastan Singh, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of father of the plaintiffs namely Karam Singh, and his sisters Bhagwan Kaur and Gurdial Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur and Gurdial Kaur never came into possession of the suit land at any point of time. In 1978, plaintiffs had purchased the land in the name of Bhagwan Kaur vide Sale Deed dated 24.04.1978. Gurdial Kaur had died and defendants are her only legal heirs. The defendants are wrongly recorded as owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the revenue record though their shares are not more than 1/6th. Defendants are further claiming to alienate the suit land more than their share. Hence, the present suit was filed on 25.07.2005.

4. Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are owner of 5/6 share in the suit land? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.

4 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous if so its effect? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the court? OPD

8. Relief.”

6. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court had held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the suit property was ancestral in nature. However, the learned trial court had declined to decree the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs had come to know about the defective mutation entries in 1978 and still kept quiet till the year 2005. Learned Trial Court had further observed that Karam Singh had also not challenged the mutation and revenue record; and even after death of Karam Singh, plaintiffs had waited till 2005 to file the suit. Learned Trial Court further held that no objection was raised by plaintiffs qua share of Bhagwan Kaur at the time of execution of Sale Deed. It is further held that defendants are in symbolic possession of the suit property. Accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs in the following manner:-

“27. In view of my findings in Issues No.1 and 3, plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaration and injunction and plaintiff can not be declared as owner to the extent of 5/6 share. Acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHNidhi Gupta, JJoginder Singh – AppellantVersusAmar Singh – RespondentRSA-2476-2013

A suit for declaration of title challenging mutation entries is barred by limitation when the plaintiffs have been aware of said entries for decades and previously acted upon them by participating in property transactions based on those very records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Joginder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent
RSA-2476-2013