R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 19, 2011 Nazar Singh .... Appellant Vs. Pritam Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D. R. Singla, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4103-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Nazar Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents-defendants alleging that plaintiff's father Jangir Singh, father's sister Santi and plaintiff's grandmother Raj Kaur, along with other co-sharers, were joint owners of 15 kanals 13 marlas land including 04 kanals land of khasra no.21//15/1. Defendants no.1 to 5 (including their predecessors) filed R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) 2 petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short – the Act), which was decided by Additional Director vide order dated 12.08.1971, thereby withdrawing 10 marlas area out of 04 kanals land of khasra no.21//15/1. The plaintiff's case is that remaining 03 kanals 10 marlas area of the said khasra (which is now the suit land) remained in the ownership of plaintiff and his aunt and grandmother and accordingly, plaintiff and defendants no.6 to 13 are owners of the suit land. However, on the basis of order dated 12.08.1971, mutation no.3142 was wrongly sanctioned regarding entire 04 kanals land. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for possession of the suit land alleging that he is owner thereof. Revenue entries depicting defendants no.1 to 5 to be owners of the suit land are incorrect and are liable to be corrected. Defendants no.1, 6, 7 and 11 contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. Suit was also pleaded to be time barred. Pleadings of the plaintiff were claimed to be vague, giving no details of the other co-sharers or the extent of their shares. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendants no.3 to 5, 8 and 10 also contested the suit and took similar stand. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Judge, Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Mutation no.3142, on the basis of order dated 12.08.1971, was sanctioned on 14.03.1972 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and some other persons. The said mutation is being challenged in the instant suit, which was filed on 16.02.2005 i.e. after 33 years. The suit is thus patently barred by limitation. In addition to the aforesaid, plaintiff's claim on merits is also not substantiated by the evidence on record. Copy of jamabandi for the year 1969-70 (Ex.P-2) does not depict the names of all the co-sharers in 15 kanals 13 marlas land including 04 kanals land of disputed khasra no.21//15/1. Moreover, order dated 12.08.1971 passed by Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act (Ex.P-1) reveals that 10 marlas standard area of the disputed khasra number was withdrawn from plaintiff's father, grandmother etc. However, there is no evidence on record regarding the value of the said land in terms of standard area. Consequently, it cannot be said that actual area withdrawn was only 10 marlas. If valuation of the land of disputed khasra number was two annas, the actual area would come to 04 kanals in lieu of 10 marlas standard area. Consequently, on the basis of order dated 12.08.1971, it cannot be said that only 10 marlas actual area had been withdrawn from the disputed khasra number. On the contrary, if it R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) 4 had been so, the plaintiff and other co-sharers would not have remained silent for 33 years. They are also out of possession as the plaintiff is seeking relief of possession. The very fact that plaintiff and other co- sharers remained silent for 33 years would also depict that the mutation has been rightly sanctioned on the basis of the order passed under Section 42 of the Act and the plaintiff-appellant has no case on merits. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is justified by the evidence on record. The plaintiff has not even produced in evidence impugned mutation no.3142, which could depict as to on what basis the entire 04 kanals land of the disputed khasra number was mutated in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 and others. Plaintiff's pleadings are also vague because even names of the alleged co-sharers in the suit land are not mentioned. Similar is the position of evidence led by the plaintiff. No details of other co-sharers and the extent of their shares have been pleaded or proved. Consequently, finding recorded by the courts below does not warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE R. S. A. No. 1474 of 2011 (O&M) 5