RSA No.6886 of 2016 (O&M)

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.6886 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of decision:01.04.2019

Lajjo Devi @ Lajwanti (since deceased) through LRs and others

... Appellants

Vs.

Mam Raj (since deceased) through LRs and others

... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:-

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate

for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

C.M.No.17898-C of 2016

For the reasons stated in the application which is duly

supported by an affidavit, delay of 64 days in re-filing the appeal is

condoned.

C.M. stands allowed.

RSA No.6886 of 2016 (O&M)

The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the

concurrent findings of fact and law whereby suit of the appellant-plaintiffs

who are none else but disgruntled sisters claimed the right and title in the

suit property after 32 years of the mutation dated 10.06.1975, has been

dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal.

It was alleged that Telu Ram died intestate and as per the

natural succession, chidren i.e. daughters had the share in the suit property.

SAVITA KADIAN

2019.04.12 10:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.6886 of 2016 (O&M)

{2}

The plaintiffs are two disgruntled married daughters.

Defendant no.1 opposed the suit and alleged that in the muation

proceedings bearing no.818 of 1975, no objection was raised by the

appellant-plaintiffs and since then, they have been in exclusive possession

of the suit property. No steps have been taken by them to assert the right, in

case, it was ancestoral property, therefore, the daughters did not have the

right.

Defendant no.2 contested the suit and also propunded the Will

dated 06.11.1974, on the basis of which the mutation, ibid was sanctioned.

Defendant no.2 stated that some part of the land had already sold by

defendant no.1 and by him to defendants no.3 to 5 but he was ready to

adjust the land already sold vide his share.

Defendants no.3 to 5 objected the suit and claimed themselves

to be bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration whereas defendant

no.4 also filed the written statement on the similar lines as that of

defendants no.1 and 2.

In support of the averments, plaintiff examined herself and

brought on record the jamabandis for the years 1973-74 as Ex.P1 and 2003-

04 as Ex.P2 and tendered the mutation bearing No.818 as Mark A.

Defendants examined five witnesses including DW4-Sita Ram, Ex-

lambardar, witness of the Will.

Mr. Akshay Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant-plaintiffs submitted that there is no bar for ascertaining the right

in the title much less limitation. The Will was surrounded by suspicious

SAVITA KADIAN

2019.04.12 10:17

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.6886 of 2016 (O&M)

{3}

circumstances as DW4-Sita Ram, witness of the Will, in cross-examination

did not support the case of the defendants by stating that he had not

appended the signatures in the presence of testator-Telu Ram, in view of hte

compliance of the provisions of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act,

therefore, there is gross illegality and perversity.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs,

appraised the judgments and decrees as well as record of the Courts below

and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr.

Jindal.

The law of limitation on the ground of title is no longer res

integra but there is a caveat that it can be invoked only when there is threat

to the title. The mutation in the aforementioned case, as noticed above, was

effected in the year 1975. The plaintiffs are the married daughters and they

knew that their brothers had been in exclusive possession of the suit

property. No challenge was laid. The law of acquiescence is also

recognized but no reasons have come forth in not