RSA No.2439 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.2439 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2011 Ram Singh ......Appellant Versus Amar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arihant Jain,Advocate for the appellant Mr.M.K.Singla,Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for joint possession and permanent injunction by challenging the decree suffered by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant No.1 was the head of the Joint Hindu Family. Defendant No.1 was recorded as owner to the extent of 1/4th share out of the suit land. The land in dispute was ancestral property of the parties. Defendant No.1 had suffered a decree in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 without any legal necessity and the said decree was a result of fraud. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the RSA No.2439 of 2008 (O&M) 2 contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Amar Singh, defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and could dispose of the same in the manner he likes. The impugned decree dated 9.11.1990 was legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether judgment and decree in civil suit No.418 of 13.6.90 titled as Bharpur Singh vs. Amar Singh is null and void?OPP 2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit land?OPP 4.Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPD 5.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 6.Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 7.Whether present suit is hit by the principles of res judicata?OPD 8.Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 9.Whether present suit is hit by order 2 rule 2 CPC?OPD 10.Relief” The Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2004. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2006. Hence, RSA No.2439 of 2008 (O&M) 3 the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed Civil Suit No.418 of 13.6.1990 seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of half of the share out of 1/4th share of Amar Singh, their father. The said claim was admitted by Amar Singh in his written statement and, consequently, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1990. Plaintiff, however, filed the suit in the year 2000 challenging the decree which was passed on 9.11.1990. Since the suit filed by the plaintiff was clearly time barred, the same had been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE April 18, 2011 arya