R.S.A.No.1836 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1836 of 2008 Date of Decision : 21.08.2009 Dalip Singh ...Appellant Versus Budh Ram ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1-son of Jai Narayan, is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent that he is owner in possession of 17/24 share of land measuring 36 Kanals 16 Marlas was decreed and holding that the defendants have 7/24 share in the suit land. Mangal, father of the plaintiff was owner of land measuring 36 Kanals 16 Marlas. He died in the year 1960. He had three daughters namely Basanti, Gindori and Dakha, two sons namely Budh Ram and Jai Narayan. Parbati was his wife. Jai Narayan was the pre-deceased son of Mangal. R.S.A.No.1836 of 2008 2 It has been rightly found by the learned first Appellate Court that by applying the principle of notional partition, the estate of Mangal shall be inherited in equal shares by his widow, two sons and three daughters. Since, the widow and three daughters have relinquished their rights in respect of the share inherited by them in favour of Budh Ram, the line of Jai Narayan will get remaining 1/6th share. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the mutation of estate of Mangal was sanctioned in the year 1961, whereby 1/4th share of Mangal was mutated in his name. The present suit for declaration has been filed in the year 2003, therefore, the same is barred by limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The dispute between the parties is in respect of shares in the estate of Mangal. After the death of Mangal his legal heirs would be deemed to be in possession as co-sharers. Therefore, the right to sue arises when cause of action would arise to the plaintiff i.e. when there is cloud over the title. Such is the judgment of this Court in Ibrahim @ Dharam Vir Vs. Smt. Sharifan @ Shanti 1979 P.L.J. 469. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 21.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE