RSA No.2441 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2441 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20 th APRIL, 2011 Jasmer & another .... Appellants Versus Surta & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. N. S. Dhillon, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs Jasmer and Birbal having lost in both the courts below are in second appeal. Plaintiffs' case is that Sheroo was owner of the suit land. He had two daughters Jehro and Mindo. Plaintiffs are grand-sons of Jehro, whereas defendants are heirs of Mindo. Accordingly, plaintiffs claimed half share in the suit land. However, mutation No.1061 of the suit land was sanctioned in favour of Basanta (father of defendant No.1.), Risala-defendant no.2 and Lali on the basis of alleged oral gift dated 01.06.1940. The said mutation has been challenged in the suit to be illegal and null and void. Subsequent consent decree dated 24.02.1987 suffered by aforesaid Basanta, Lali and Risala in favour of defendants No.1 and 6 to 8 has also been challenged in the suit. Defendants contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that Jehro and Mindo were daughters of Sheroo. It RSA No.2441 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was pleaded that Jehro, Mindo and Bumbli were daughters of Mam Raj. It was also alleged that Sheroo had only one issue i.e. son named Ruldu who died unmarried and issueless during the lifetime of Sheroo. It was pleaded that Sheroo made oral gift of the suit land on 01.06.1940 in favour of Basanta, Lali and Risala and consequently mutation No.1061 was rightly sanctioned in their favour and consequently consent decree dated 24.02.1987 suffered by them in favour of defendants No.1 and 6 to 8 is also legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that Jehro and Mindo were daughters of Sheroo. Consequently plaintiffs are not heirs of Sheroo and have no locus standi to file the instant suit. In excerpt produced in evidence, only Ruldu has been shown to be son of Sheroo. Mutation No.1061 was sanctioned on 13.06.1940 on the basis of oral gift dated 01.06.1940 made by Sheroo in favour of Basanta etc. Admittedly plaintiffs are also not in possession of the suit land. The instant suit was filed on 24.01.2002 i.e. more than six decades after mutation No.1061 of the suit land was sanctioned in favour of Basanta etc. The plaintiffs were not even born at that time. The plaintiffs and their predecessors remained RSA No.2441 of 2010 (O&M) -3- silent throughout this long period of six decades. If the plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the suit land, then they and their predecessors would not have remained silent for such a long period. Moreover, suit is also barred by limitation because the plaintiffs are not even in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs' oral evidence is also not reliable to prove their relationship with Sheroo. Plaintiff No.1 is aged 33 years only and so he had no personal knowledge of the alleged relationship. Beer Singh PW-2 was also aged 7 years only in the year 1940. Their statements have been rightly discarded by the courts below. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiffs. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence by recording very detailed reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or mis- appreciation of the evidence. Consequently the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 20th April, 2011 'raj'