Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2008 Date of decision : March 25, 2010 Laxmi ....Appellant versus Rawat Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. K. B. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 to 11 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by Laxmi defendant no. 1 who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondents no. 1 to 11 (including Mohan Lal predecessor of respondents no. 3 to 6) filed suit against appellant and proforma respondents no. 12 to 14 and one Basdev for possession of suit land measuring 17 marlas alleging that plaintiffs are owners of the suit property having purchased it vide sale deeds dated 10.11.1983 and 17.11.1983. The plaintiffs also constructed Tin shed in it. However, defendant no. 1 took forcible possession of the suit property on 2.2.1997. Hence, the suit for possession. Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2008 -2- Only defendant no. 1 contested the suit and interalia, pleaded that previous suit no. 303 of 1991 filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.1999 regarding the same property. Defendant no. 1 alleged that she is owner in possession of the suit property. Previously her father Jamuna Dass was in possession thereof for the last 60 years. Suit plot and some other land stood mortgaged with possession with father of defendant no. 1 by Ram Chander predecessor of vendors of the plaintiffs. The mortgaged property was not got redeemed and therefore, defendant no. 1 being daughter and heir of the mortgagee has become owner of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2007. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property is fully established because admittedly Ram Chander was previous owner thereof and the plaintiffs have purchased the same from heirs of Ram Chander since deceased. Plea of defendant no. 1 appellant that the suit property was mortgaged with possession with her father by Ram Chander is not substantiated by any evidence. Consequently, the suit has been rightly decreed. Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2008 -3- Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit is time barred because defendant no. 1 and previously her father had been in possession of the suit property for 60 years. The contention is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. On the other hand, there is revenue record depicting that defendant no. 1 or her father was not in possession of the suit property for 60 years as alleged by defendant no. 1. On the other hand, in the revenue record possession of the owners has been recorded throughout. Presumption attaching to consistent revenue entries has not been rebutted by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that vide judgment dated 15.9.1999, Annexure A/1, previous suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed and the sale deeds vide which the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit property were held to be null and void and therefore, plaintiffs cannot succeed in the present suit. The contention appears to be very weighty and attractive on first blush but in fact the contention is completely misleading and devoid of merit. The previous suit no. 303 of 1991 was filed for redemption of mortgage of some other land because the said land stood mortgaged with some of the defendants of that suit. However, learned counsel for the appellant after having obtained copy of plaint and copy of decree sheet passed in that suit concedes that the said suit did not relate to property involved in the instant suit. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the sale deeds in question were held to be null and void in entirety in the previous suit cannot be accepted. The said suit related to redemption of mortgage of other land. It was held in that suit that limitation period for redemption of mortgage had expired and Regular Second Appeal No. 2416 of 2008 -4- therefore, the mortgagees had become owners of the said land by prescription and consequently, sale deeds in question in favour of the plaintiffs were held to be null and void. It would, thus, become apparent that the said sale deeds were held to be null and void qua land involved in that suit because vendors were left with no right, title or interest in the land of that suit of which the mortgagees had become owners. However, it would not mean that the other property i.e. property involved in the present suit was also not validly sold to the plaintiffs through the sale deeds. The said sale deeds were not declared null and void qua the suit property involved in the present suit. In fact, in previous suit, said sale deeds could not be declared to be null and void qua property involved in the present suit which was not even subject of the previous suit. The sale deeds vide which the plaintiffs purchased suit property are perfectly legal and valid qua present suit property of which the plaintiffs have become owners. Consequently, the suit for possession of the suit property filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of title has been rightly decreed by the courts below. The instant appeal is completely without any merit. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 25, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'