RSA No..2250 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2250 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2011 Surat Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Savitri Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.P.R.Yadav,Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr.A.K.Yadav,Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Nar Singh was owner of the property in dispute to the extent of 1/6th share. Nar Singh had died on 5.5.1998. After the death of Nar Singh, plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 have become owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/30th share each. Plaintiff was residing in her matrimonial home after her marriage. After the death of Nar Singh, she requested defendants No. 1 to 4 to get her name recorded in the revenue record qua her share. About two months back when the plaintiff visited the village Nimbi, she came to know RSA No..2250 of 2007 (O&M) 2 that defendant No.1 had given her share in the suit property to defendant No.5 vide a decree dated 5.10.1990 in Civil Suit No. 1053 of 1990 and mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.5 on 3.8.1990. Plaintiff had requested the defendants to admit her claim to the extent of 1/30th share to the suit property but they had not acceded to her request and, hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 2 to 4 in their written statement admitted the fact that Nar Singh, their father had 1/6th share in the suit property. Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 had equal shares qua the share of Nar Singh in the suit property. Defendant no.5, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the decree in question was legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 1053 dated 1990 decided on 5.10.1990 titled as Kashi Ram vs. Sheo Parshad and mutation No. 888 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as alleged.?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit?OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5.Whether suit is time barred?OPD 6.Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file this RSA No..2250 of 2007 (O&M) 3 suit?OPD 7.Whether suit is hit by principle of estoppel and waiver?OPD 8.Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 9. Relief” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2004 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2007. Plaintiff was held to be owner to the extent of 1/30th share in the suit property and a decree for joint possession along with defendants No. 2 to 5 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.5 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Nar Singh was the owner of the suit property situated in village Nimbi to the extent of 1/6th share. Plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 are the children of Nar Singh. After the death of Nar Singh, all his children were liable to inherit his share out of the suit property in equal shares. Nar Singh also had land in Village Bhakhri and in village Dochana. The land belonging to Nar Singh situated in village Bhakhri was mutated in the name of plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 4 in equal shares. So far as the land belonging to Nar Singh in village Dochana is concerned, it was also mutated in the name of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 in equal shares. Wife of Nar Singh had pre-deceased him. It has been noticed by the RSA No..2250 of 2007 (O&M) 4 learned District Judge that Exhibit P6 mutation in respect of land belonging to Nar Singh in village Dochana had not been contested by the contesting defendants. Since the plaintiff had based her claim on the basis of inheritance, the suit of the plaintiff could not be said to be time barred. Plaintiff on coming to know about the passing of the decree in favour of defendant No.5 had filed the suit claiming her share out of the suit property. Sheo Parshad could have suffered a decree in favour of defendant No.5 qua his share out of the suit property. In these circumstances, decree dated 5.10.1990 has been rightly upheld so far as it relates to the share of defendant No.1-Sheo Parshad out of the suit property. The learned District Judge, thus, rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for joint possession along with defendants No. 2 to 5 to the extent of 1/30th share in the suit property. The decree dated 5.10.1990 in favour of defendant No.5 was upheld to the extent of 1/30th share of defendant No. 1. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 23, 2011 arya