RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2008 Pyare Lal ......Appellant Versus Ramphal and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration against the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 passed by Ms. Manisha Batra, the then Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bahadurgardh being wrong illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights. 2. It is further averred that the plaintiffs along with the proforma defendants became owners in possession of 73 kanals 16 marlas. However, defendants No.1 to 15 on the basis of wrong entries, asserted their title over the same and defendants No.2 to 6 in collusion with defendant No.16 had transferred their alleged share in the suit property by way of Civil Court decree dated 26.9.1998 passed by Ms. Manisha Batra, the then Civil Judge (Jr. Divison) Bahadurgarh in a suit titled as Pyare Lal v. Savitri etc. 3. It is further averred that defendants No.2 to 6 were neither owners nor in possession of the suit land and therefore, they had no right to transfer their share. Defendants No.1 and 7 to 15 also threatened to transfer their alleged share in the suit land since the act of defendant No.1 RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) 2 to 16 being illegal and unlawful just put a cloud on the plaintiffs’ rights and title over the said land. Hence, the said suit. 4. On notice only defendant Nos.16 and 17 contested the suit by filing joint written statement. Objection regarding maintainability of the suit, limitation etc. was taken. It was denied that Sher Singh son of Lajje Ram was ever adopted by Ramjas. It was further averred that Ramjas son of Prem Singh, resident of Bawana had gifted his agricultural land and other immovable property of village Bawana in favour of Sher Singh son of Lajje Ram. It was also averred that Ramjas had never adopted Sher Singh and therefore, after the death of Lajje, his estate was rightly and legally inherited by his all five sons including Roop Chand son of Sher Singh and therefore, Mutation No.261 was rightly sanctioned in their favour and after the death of Prem Raj, Mutation No.1621 was sanctioned in accordance with law and thus, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 26 became owners in possession of land of Lajje Ram. Defendants No.1 to 15 had rightly claimed their title over the land because Roop Chand, the ancestor of defendants No.1 to 15 had rightly and legally inherited the property of Lajje Ram. They also asserted that the entries in the revenue record were cored and the decree dated 26.9.1998 suffered by defendants No.2 to 6 in favour of defendant No.16 was legal and binding on every body including the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 and 7 to 15 became owners in possession of their share in the suit land and therefore they had every right to alienate the same in favour of any person of their choice. Other allegations were also denied by the defendants and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 5. The following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owner in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPP. RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) 3 2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.110/98 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the parties? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation? OPP 6. Relief.” 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on the record took issues No.1 and 2 jointly and held that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants being the successors-in-interest of Lajje Ram became owner and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 was wrong and illegal. However, with regard to the possession, it was held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit land and therefore, both the issues were, accordingly and partly, decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. On the basis of the findings given under issues No.1 and 2, issue No.3 was again decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Since, the plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit property and they did not request for the same, therefore, issue No.4 was decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issue with regard to the limitation was also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. It was held that the suit challenging the mutation No.261 was hopelessly time barred as the LRs of Sher Singh had remained in possession over the suit land throughout. RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Consequently, this issue was decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. On the basis of the above findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh filed an appeal which was allowed by the Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.10.2007 and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed to the effect that the plaintiffs and the defendants are owners in possession of the land mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint and the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1998 passed by Ms. Manisha Batra, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh in Civil Suit No.110/98 is not binding upon the parties. It was also held that defendants No.1 to 15 have got no right or title over the above mentioned land. Now the defendants have challenged the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court through the instant appeal. 8. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is not maintainable as he has filed a suit for declaration simplicitor without seeking possession of land in dispute and thus, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs being the sons of Ram Singh son of Lajje and thus, they were co-sharers in the property left by their grandfather Lajje and being a co-sharer, there was no necessity to seek relief of possession because every co-sharer would be deemed to be the owner on every inch of joint land. RSA No.340 of 2008 (O&M) 5 11. No other point has been urged. 12. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court in the present appeal. 13. No merit. Dismissed. September 10, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE