R. S. A. No. 2322 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2322 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 02, 2011 Angoori Devi .... Appellant Vs. Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 6984-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 61 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Angoori Devi, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The entire litigation leading to the instant second appeal is based on completely unfounded claim and is thus frivolous in nature. The R. S. A. No. 2322 of 2010 (O&M) 2 plaintiff alleged that defendant no.1 – Union of India is owner of the suit land and entries depicting Balbir Singh and his wife Joginder Kaur to be owners thereof are illegal and null and void and consequently, sale deed by Joginder Kaur in favour of Inder Singh and subsequent sale deed by Inder Singh in favour of Garibu – father of defendants no.5 and 6 is also illegal and null and void. Besides seeking declaration to this effect, the plaintiff also sought permanent injunction against defendants no.5 and 6. The plaintiff alleged that suit property was never allotted to Balbir Singh or Joginder Kaur and therefore, revenue entries in their favour are illegal and null and void. The plaintiff also alleged that she is Harijan being Chamar by caste. She applied to defendant no.4 – Tehsildar (Sales) for allotment of the suit land, but needful has not been done. Defendants no.1 to 4 broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that the suit land is recorded in the ownership of defendants no.5 and 6. As per jamabandi for the year 1956-57, the suit land was allotted to Balbir Singh, but it was cancelled vide Rapat No.87 dated 04.11.1961. The cancellation was not incorporated in the revenue record, which continued in favour of Balbir Singh and Joginder Kaur, who taking advantage of the same, sold the suit land. Mere application moved by the plaintiff does not entitle her to allotment. Defendants no.5 and 6 also denied the plaint allegations and claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. Various other pleas R. S. A. No. 2322 of 2010 (O&M) 3 were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 17.07.2008, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 01.05.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. From the material on record, it is manifest that the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited. Plaintiff has not sought any relief in her favour in the suit, and therefore, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit to seek declaration that defendant no.1 is owner of the suit land. Secondly, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because she has no right, title or interest in the suit land. Thirdly, she alleged that she is Harijan being Chamar by caste, and therefore, she has applied for allotment of the suit land. However, she failed to produce any document in evidence to depict that she is Chamar by caste. Fourthly, there is no averment as to under what scheme or provision, the plaintiff allegedly being Harijan could apply for allotment of the suit land. In addition to the aforesaid, alleged cancellation of allotment of the land in favour of Joginder Kaur was set aside by this Court vide order R. S. A. No. 2322 of 2010 (O&M) 4 dated 09.03.1972 (Ex.D-14) passed in Civil Writ No.11 of 1965. Consequently, whole basis of the plaintiff's claim is knocked out. The suit land had been allotted to Joginder Kaur. Cancellation of the said allotment was set aside by this Court. Consequently, Joginder Kaur was owner of the suit land and sale by her to Inder Singh and subsequent sale by Inder Singh to father of defendants no.5 and 6, are therefore, legal and valid. Thus, on merits also, the plaintiff has no claim. Plaintiff's suit has also been rightly held to be barred by limitation. Allotment to Joginder Kaur was made sometime in 1956-57. Cancellation thereof was set aside by this Court in 1972. The instant suit was filed on 29.05.2001 i.e. after 29 years. The suit is thus hopelessly barred by limitation. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that the instant second appeal is not only meritless but is also frivolous and abuse of process of Court. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiff does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. May 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE