RSA No.2212 of 2012

#1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2212 of 2012

Date of Decision: 10.09.2012

Chahat Ram

....Appellant

Versus

Mahender and Ors.

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. M.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the appellant.

JASWANT SINGH, J

Appellant-Chahat Ram, who is the legal representative of

original plaintiff No.1-Smt. Ramesh, is in second appeal against the

concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby the suit filed by

the plaintiffs/and proforma respondent Nos.62 to 66 has been

dismissed and the findings have been affirmed in appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (5 sisters) filed

suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction

that the impugned entry in the mutation No.147 in the name of their

brothers defendant No.1 (Mahender) & defendant No.2 (Mehar Chand)

and all subsequent sale deeds through their elder sister-defendant No.3

(Smt. Suresh) or directly by defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void.

Upon notice, the suit was resisted by filing written statements. After

RSA No.2212 of 2012

#2#

hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide

judgment and decree dated 20.12.2010. On an appeal having been filed

the same has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide

judgment & decree dated 28.2.2012, hence the present second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the

courts below have gravely erred while dismissing the suit of the

plaintiff as the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of Nathi @

Mohan and mutation No.147 was sanctioned only in favour of

defendant Nos.1 & 2 whereas the name of the plaintiff also should have

been recorded in the same. It is further argued that both the courts have

wrongly non-suited the plaintiff while deciding issue No.12 on the

point of limitation as the cause of action accrued in favour of the

plaintiff only on 25.7.2001 when the subsequent buyers approached the

plaintiffs to take actual physical possession of the suit land purchased

from defendant Nos.1 & 2.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and

perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the

present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

A perusal of paper book reveals that the learned trial Court

framed as many as 13 issues and issues Nos.1 to 5, 11 to 13 were

decided in favour of the defendants whereas issue Nos.6 to 10 were

decided against the defendants.

In the present lis, the plaintiffs have challenged the

mutation No.147 dated 29.1.1980 (Ex.P.3) by filing civil suit No.32

RSA No.2212 of 2012

#3#

dated 4.9.2001 i.e after a period of more than 20 years as well as sale

deed shown in Annexure A executed from 28.5.1986 till 8.6.1993 in

favour of about 50 persons and the ground is that they came to know

only on 25.7.2001 when all the buyers had approached them for

delivery of actual physical possession. Smt. Ramesh (since deceased)/

original plaintiff No.1 while appearing as PW1, Bali Ram as PW2 and

Nathi as PW3 clearly conceded that the plaintiffs had never been in

cultivating possession of the suit land rather they have admitted that

after the death of their father, defendant Nos.1 & 2 were in possession

of the land in dispute.

PW1 has stated that none of the plaintiffs has been residing

in village or in possession of the suit land. Thus, both the courts below

have rightly concluded that the suit is hopelessly time barred and even

this Court also affirmed the findings on issue No.12 that there is no

material available on record to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff

came to know about the mutation and sale deed only on 25.7.2001

rather the same is contrary to the evidence of the plaintiffs itself.

Even on merits also, it is claimed by plaintiffs that Nathi @

Mohan was the common ancestors (father)