R.S.A. No. 2836 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2836 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.01.2009 Bhagat Singh ....Appellant Versus Ompati (dead) by L.Rs. & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The appellant has challenged the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 12.8.2004 and that of the learned first Appellate Court dated 6.8.2007. A gift deed was executed by the father of the appellant Shri Ram Sarup on 17.11.1972 in favour of his sister Ompati and she was put in possession. The appellant is also in possession of some property left behind by his father. The suit was filed in the year 1999 challenging the validity of the gift deed that the suit property being ancestral could not have been gifted away. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the gift deed dated 17.11.1972 is null, void R.S.A. No. 2836 of 2007 -2- and illegal? OPP 2. Whether the subsequent revenue entries on the basis of said gift deed also liable to be declared null, void and illegal?OPP 3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the defendant No.1 is owner in possession of the suit property?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred.?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit.?OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing he present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 9. Relief. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to established that the land was ancestral, and also that the suit was barred by limitation. It was concluded that respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the appellant since 1972. The donor of the gift Ram Sarup died in the year 1981. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the suit is clearly barred by limitation. The gift deed was executed in the year R.S.A. No. 2836 of 2007 -3- 1972 during the life time of Ram Sarup. He died after almost 9 years of executing the gift deed. This fact was also incorporated in the revenue record and the respondent No.1 was also put in joint possession of the suit property. Once the mutation and revenue record as also the possession was to the knowledge of the appellant, the same could not have been challenged after a lapse of almost 27 years. The finding of the Courts below that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be termed to be perverse or contrary to the law. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. 20.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss