115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1123-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on :- 23.05.2022

Date of decision : 31.05.2022

Santu @ Sant Ram through his LRs and Others

.....Appellants

Versus

Raghbir @ Raghubar and Others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J.

CM-3589-C-2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of 198 days in

filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 198 days

in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed off.

CM-3591-C-2022

This is an application for impleading the legal representatives of

appellant No.1, Santu @ Sant Ram, who is stated to have died on

04.08.2020 i.e. after the decision of the appeal by the lower Appellate Court

but before filing of the present regular second appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed subject to just exceptions and the legal representatives of appellant

No.1, Santu @ Sant Ram, as mentioned in para 4 are impleaded as party.

The amended memo of parties is already on the record as also vakalatnama

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.05.31 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

signed by the newly impleaded legal representatives.

RSA-1123-2022

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the

plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by both the

Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Brief facts as averred by the plaintiff-appellants are that on

14.06.1960 Kesa s/o Jita and Bhupan s/o Mula sold their 1/8^th share of

agricultural land to Shahmal s/o Hukma and handed over possession to

Shahmal. Shahmal was already owning 1/8^th share in the suit land. The

original vendors and the vendees are dead. It was alleged that Shahmal

remained owner in possession of the area already owned by him as also the

area purchased by him on 14.06.1960. However, his name was not recorded

in the revenue record of the area purchased by him on 14.06.1960 but only

recorded his ownership of the area already owned by him. Based on the

wrong entry in the revenue record, Bhupan s/o Mula suffered a decree dated

27.05.1989 in favour of his sons and on that basis mutation was sanctioned

in favour of his sons. The sons of Bhupal s/o Mula further sold the suit land

vide sale deed dated 12.08.1998. Similarly, Kesa s/o Jita, on the basis of the

wrong entry in the revenue record, sold part of the suit land vide sale deed

dated 22.04.1999. It is averred that when the plaintiff-appellants learnt about

the wrong entry in the revenue record they got it corrected but the same was

cancelled by the Collector. It was submitted in the plaint that the decree

dated 27.05.1989, the sale deeds dated 12.08.1998 and 22.04.1999 are

illegal, null and void and are not binding on the plaintiff-appellants and are

liable to be set aside. It was also averred that part of the suit land stood

acquired and the defendant-respondents were threatening to collect the

TRIPTI SAINI

2022.05.31 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

compensation. Based on the said averments the suit for declaration and

permanent injunction was filed.

On notice, written statement was filed by the defendant-

respondents wherein it was stated that the decree and sale deeds were not

challenged within limitation, that the plaintiff-appellants were estopped from

challenging the sale deed dated 22.04.1999 since they were parties to the

said sale deed, that the suit was barred by limitation. It was denied that Kesa

s/o Jita and Bhupan s/o Mula had sold their 1/8^th share of agricultural land to

Shahmal s/o Hukma vide saledeed dated 14.06.1960 and handed over

possession to Shahmal. It was averred that the plaintiff