RSA No. 4947 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4947 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2011. Shamey Singh .......Appellant Vs. Roshan Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 22.9.1988 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 on the basis of the power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. The mutation No. 875 sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed was also challenged being illegal. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 were real brothers. Plaintiff and his other brothers had executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 on 30.5.1983 qua the suit land. Plaintiff had cancelled the power of attorney vide registered cancellation deed dated 23.1.1986. Due intimation of the said cancellation of the power of attorney was given to defendant No.1. Despite the said fact, defendant No.1 had executed the impugned sale deed on behalf RSA No. 4947 of 2009 (O&M) -2- of the plaintiff. Plaintiff came to know about the sale deed in the month of March 2002 when the defendants No. 2 and 3 threatened to dispossess him from the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were proceed ex parte before the trial court. Defendants No. 3 and 4, in their written statement, averred that they had purchased the suit property for valuable consideration and were, thus, bonafide purchasers. After the execution of the sale deed in their favour, the answering defendants were in possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner of the disputed property? OPP 2. If first issue is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi for filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2009, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said RSA No. 4947 of 2009 (O&M) -3- judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The impugned sale deed was executed on 22.9.1988, whereas the plaintiff filed the suit on 6.4.2002. The plaintiff is residing in the same village where the property in dispute is situated. The possession of the suit land was handed over to the defendants No. 3 and 4 after the execution of the sale deed in their favour. Hence, the plea taken by the plaintiff that he did not come to know about the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 till the year 2002, was liable to be rejected. Plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit had given his address that he was residing in village Tandwal. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also residing in village Tandwal. The suit property is also situated in village Tandwal. Since, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation, the same was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 01, 2011 Gurpreet