IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.5041 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30 th May, 2011 Sardara Singh & others ….Appellants Versus Dayal Singh & others ….Respondents CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT : Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs having failed partly in both the courts below are in second appeal. Kirpa Singh had six sons i.e. Sardara Singh plaintiff No.1, Prem Singh (represented by plaintiffs No.2 and 3 Gurcharan Singh and Jeeto son and widow respectively), Bhag Singh (represented by plaintiffs No.4 to 7 being three sons and widow), Dial Singh and Mohinder Singh defendants No.1 and 2 and Ram Singh (represented by defendants No.3 and 4 being his sons). Plaintiffs’ case is that the entire suit land measuring 52 bighas 6 Biswas was allotted to Kirpa Singh by Custodian Department and on his death, all the six sons (including branches of the deceased sons) have become owners in possession of 1/6th share each in the suit land but defendants No.1 to 4 have got entry regarding 15 bighas 14 biswas land in RSA No.5041 of 2009 their name and taking advantage thereof, they are disputing rightful share of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that all the six sons of Kirpa Singh (including branches of deceased sons) have 1/6th share each in the suit land. Consequential relief was also sought. Defendants No.1 to 4 contested the suit and pleaded that separate khasra numbers were allotted separately to plaintiffs and defendants as detailed in the written statements. Entries in revenue record are legal and valid. Conveyance deed has also been executed accordingly. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004 partly decreed the plaintiffs’ suit holding that plaintiff No.1 Sardara Singh has 1/6th share in the property of Kirpa Singh. Suit regarding remaining relief was dismissed. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that entire sale consideration for the suit land was deposited by sons of Kirpa Singh on behalf of Kirpa Singh vide treasury challan dated 20.10.1961 and accordingly in jamabandis for the years 1966-67 and 1971-72, all the six sons of Kirpa Singh were shown to be in possession of the suit land, whereas, custodian was recorded to be owner of the suit land. It was -2- RSA No.5041 of 2009 accordingly contended that all the six sons of Kirpa Singh had 1/6th share each in the entire suit land. The aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted. All the sons of Kirpa Singh gave affidavits dated 20.05.1981 Exhibit DW-2/A to DW-2/F regarding allotment of separate khasra numbers of suit land to each of them and accordingly conveyance deed Exhibit PW-5/1 dated 22.05.1981 was executed in favour of all the six sons of Kirpa Singh conveying land of separate khasra numbers to each of them. It is thus manifest that the suit land was not allotted to Kirpa Singh but was allotted to his six sons separately by way of separate khasra numbers pursuant to their own affidavits. The entire claim of the plaintiffs is completely fallacious, misconceived and meritless. It may be added that Sardara Singh plaintiff No.1 while appearing as PW-4 admitted separate allotment of different khasra numbers to the six sons of Kirpa Singh. He admitted individual allotment of separate khasra numbers to the sons of Kirpa Singh. Conveyance Deed was executed accordingly and mutation was also sanctioned accordingly. Thus plaintiff No.1 Sardara Singh in the witness box also admitted version of the defendants. In addition to the aforesaid, Sardara Singh stated that they came to know of the allotment papers in the year 1979. However, even then, the plaintiffs remained silent till filing of the instant suit in the year 1996 i.e. for 17 years. Plaintiffs could have challenged the conveyance Deed within three years of the execution thereof, but the plaintiffs filed the instant suit after more than 15 years of the execution of the conveyance -3- RSA No.5041 of 2009 deed inspite of having knowledge thereof. Consequently the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The contention that suit is based on title, can not be accepted, when the conveyance deed, which is the document of title, conveyed title to individual sons of Kirpa Singh in land of separate khasra numbers. Moreover, if there had been any such error in the conveyance deed as alleged by the plaintiffs and the same was admittedly in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would not have remained silent for more than 15 years. The only inference, therefore, is that there is no error in the conveyance deed and even the plaintiffs accepted the same, but for reasons best known to them, they thought of filing the instant suit more than 15 years after the execution of the conveyance deed for which there is no justification. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below is based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence in the form of conveyance deed and affidavits mentioned hereinbefore. Admissions of plaintiff No.1 himself in the witness box are also sufficient to non-suit the plaintiffs to the extent of the land allotted to different sons of Kirpa Singh separately. Finding recorded by the courts below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or missappreciation of the evidence. The said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 30th May, 2011 -4- RSA No.5041 of 2009 ‘raj’ -5-