R. S. A. No. 1339 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1339 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 12, 2010 Sahi Ram .... Appellant Vs. Duli Chand .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sahi Ram plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal having failed in both the courts below. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that he is owner of 08 kanals land comprising of killa nos.9/1 (4-0) and 12/2 (4-0), but the defendant, without any basis, and behind the back of the plaintiff, got sanctioned mutation no.570 on 15.05.1974 pertaining to 01 kanal 16 marlas land out of the aforesaid land by carving out sub killa nos. i.e. no.9/1/2 (0-18) and no.12/2/1 (0-18). The plaintiff learnt of the said mutation in March 2003 from the Patwari. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that the R. S. A. No. 1339 of 2010 2 aforesaid mutation is null and void and not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff and the same be set aside. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief of possession of the suit land. The defendant denied all the plaint allegations. Defendant pleaded that plaintiff and his brother Hari Singh sold the suit land measuring 01 kanal 16 marlas to the defendant in the year 1969 and accordingly, mutation no.570 was rightly sanctioned in favour of the defendant, and plaintiff was aware thereof since beginning. The defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. Previously, a suit filed against the defendant was compromised in the year 1974-75. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff's case is that the mutation no. 570 of 15.05.1974 was sanctioned wrongly in favour of the defendant without any basis. However, this contention cannot be accepted because said mutation was sanctioned on the basis of some decree of the Court. The plaintiff has R. S. A. No. 1339 of 2010 3 sought declaration only regarding the said mutation. The suit was filed more than 29 years after the sanction of mutation. The suit is thus hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff is also admittedly out of possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has not pleaded as to when he was dispossessed from the suit land. Consequently, the plaintiff being out of possession of the suit land, could not be unaware of the aforesaid mutation. In addition thereto, the plaintiff has not challenged the jamabandi entries since the sanctioning of said mutation on 15.05.1974 till the filing of the suit on 05.08.2003 i.e. for the intervening period of 29 years. The plaintiff has also not sought declaration of his ownership over the suit land. Consequently, suit to challenge mutation only, that too the mutation, which was sanctioned more than 29 years before the filing of the suit, is not maintainable and is also time barred. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently and emphatically contended that the plaintiff and his brother Hari Singh had sold only 12 marlas land being 1/3rd share of 01 kanal 16 marlas land in suit and judgment and decree dated 31.01.1974/01.02.1974 were also passed regarding 1/3rd share in the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted being completely beyond pleadings. For the same reason, the contention that vide sale deed Ex.P-2, only 1/3rd share in the suit land was sold, also cannot be accepted. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against R. S. A. No. 1339 of 2010 4 the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference in second appeal. The plaintiff, having sold the suit land in the year 1968-69, would not have remained silent for 35 years, if he had sold only 1/3rd share of the suit land. In fact, this is not even the plea of the plaintiff in the plaint that he and Hari Singh had sold only 1/3rd of the suit land and not the entire suit land to the defendant. The entire case of the plaintiff is misconceived and untenable. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 12, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE