Regular Second Appeal No. 688 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 688 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 27, 2009 Paul Singh and others ......... Appellants versus Jarnail Singh and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri K.S. Boparai, Advocate for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for declaration challenging the alienation effected by Sadhu Singh in favour of defendants No.3, 4 and 5 in the years 1975 and 1977, was dismissed. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of Sadhu Singh, whereas plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the grandsons of Sadhu Singh i.e. son of plaintiff No.1. Sadhu Singh sold different parcels of land vide sale deeds on 6.6.1975, 1.6.1997 and 25.1.1977. The said sale deeds have been challenged by the plaintiffs in the present suit on the ground that the property in the hands of Sadhu Singh was a joint Hindu family coparcenary property and the sale effected by Sadhu Singh is without legal necessity and consideration. The said suit has been filed on 24.1.1995 i.e., after more than 12 years. It has been further found that though plaintiff No.1 is major but plaintiff No.2 was Regular Second Appeal No. 688 of 2009 [2] born on 27.04.1971, plaintiff No.3 on 20.4.1965 and, thus, they attained the age of majority on 27.4.1989 and 20.4.1983 i.e., more than three years preceding the date of filing of suit. It has been found by both the learned Courts below that the suit filed by the appellant challenging the alienation effected by Sadhu Singh in the years 1975 and 1977 is beyond the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the defendant-vendees have not pleaded in the written statement that the sale was for legal necessity, therefore, the issue of legal necessity could not have been raised and examined by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that recital in the sale deed of legal necessity is not sufficient to return a finding of legal necessity and the the suit for declaration was not maintainable during the life time of Sadhu Singh . He referred to the judgments reported as Thimmaiah and others vs. Ningamma and another, (2000)7 SCC 409, Nachhittar Kaur and others vs. Kehar Singh and others, 2006(1) PLJ 600, Brij Lal vs. Daulat Ram and others, 1976 RLR 514, Hem Raj and others vs. Mehtab Singh and others, 1983 PLR 641 and Raghubir Singh vs. Dalip Singh and another, 2004(2) Recent Civil Reports 595. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant in view of the decision rendered by the learned Courts below to non suit the appellants. It has been held that the suit is barred by limitation. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Sadhu Singh died on 3.10.1984. The present suit has been filed on 24.1.1995. It is not a suit claiming inheritance. The appellants have sought to avoid the sale affected by Sadhu Singh in the year 1975 and 1977. Such Regular Second Appeal No. 688 of 2009 [3] suit could be filed within three years from the date of execution of such sale deed. Appellant No.1 is his son who was major in the year 1975 and, thus, the suit filed in the year 1995 is beyond the period of limitation. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 have attained the age of majority in the year 1983 and 1989 and, therefore, the suit filed in the year 1995 is again beyond the period of limitation. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. July 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE