R.S.A. No. 762 of 2008 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 762 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 16, 2008 Mukesh ..Appellant v. Om Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration and permanent injunction with consequential relief of possession was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit claiming himself to be co-parcener in the suit property. The challenge was to the judgments and decrees of the Civil Court dated 22.2.1994 and 10.6.1995 in Civil Suit No. 95 of 1994 and Civil Suit No. 275 of 1995, titled as “Om Singh v. Dalsher Singh”, respectively. The aforesaid decrees were suffered by the father of the appellant, namely, respondent No. 2- Dalsher Singh. The suit was filed on 10.9.2003. It had come on record before the Courts below that the appellant-plaintiff in the present case, though was a minor when the judgments and decrees impugned before the Courts below were passed, but he attained majority in June, 1999. To cover up the period of limitation, a plea was sought to be raised that the appellant-plaintiff came to know about the judgments and decrees in August, 2003, when he was sought to be dispossessed from the property in dispute. However, the learned Courts below concurrently found that the appellant-plaintiff at no point of time was either recorded as owner or in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, there was no question of his being dispossessed therefrom. R.S.A. No. 762 of 2008 [ 2] As regards the limitation, both the Courts below found that the appellant-plaintiff attained the age of majority in June, 1999 and the suit having been filed on 10.9.2003 was barred by limitation as at the most, the same could be filed within three years after attaining the age of majority. Even the plea regarding the earlier decrees having been obtained by respondent No.1 by fraud also could not be proved for the reason that respondent No.2 had himself appeared before the Court when the decrees were passed. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the property being ancestral and the same having been disposed of by respondent No.2 without any legal necessity, the judgments and decrees impugned in the suit deserve to be set aside. However, such a plea could not be accepted at that stage for the reason that the issue regarding limitation to challenge the decrees had already been gone into in great detail by both the Courts below and no defect as such could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff in the findings so recorded. He could not refer to any material on record to suggest that the appellant- plaintiff was ever shown to be in ownership or possession of the land in dispute to set up a plea that he came to know in August, 2003 when he was sought to be dispossessed from the land. If the appellant-plaintiff was aggrieved against the disposal of the property, the same was required to be challenged within the period of limitation. The suit having been filed beyond the period of limitation and the plea of fraud having not been proved, in my opinion, no illegality was committed by the Courts below in non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.9.2008 mk