RSA No.2321 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2321 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.10.2010. Joginder Singh .....Appellant Versus Swaran Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.V. K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parshant Vashisth, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by plaintiff No.1-Joginder Singh after the plaintiffs (appellant and proforma respondent Nos. 20 to 22) failed in both the Courts below. Boota Singh predecessor of the plaintiffs made oral sale of the suit land on 15.09.1952 in favour of defendants' predecessor. Mutation regarding the same was entered on 05.01.1953. Plaintiff No.1 and predecessor of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 challenged the said sale on the basis of their reversionery rights under customary law. The said suit was decreed on 22.01.1955 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land on deposit of Rs.1,871/- on the death of Boota Singh vendor. Boota Singh died on 18.09.1974. Plaintiffs on 13.09.1985 filed petition for execution of decree dated 22.01.1955. Executing Court dismissed the said execution petition on 11.03.1989. Civil Revision Petition No.1959 of 1989 filed against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 02.08.1989. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in Supreme Court by way of special leave RSA No.2321 of 2010 -2- petition was also dismissed on 27.08.1998. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the instant suit on 17.08.1999 for possession of the suit land. These facts have been recorded as stated by learned Senior counsel for the appellant. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds including the ground of bar of limitation. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2006 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.1 only has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as they had been prosecuting wrong remedy by filing execution petition and earlier revision petition in this Court and appeal in Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs should be treated to be within limitation. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find myself unable to accept the same. As per Article 2(b) of the Schedule to the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920, limitation period for filing suit for possession was three years where declaratory decree under the customary law had already been obtained, as in the instant case. Boota Singh vendor died on 18.09.1974 and, therefore, right to sue accrued on the said date, when the plaintiffs became RSA No.2321 of 2010 -3- entitled to seek possession of the suit land. However, the instant suit was filed on 17.08.199 i.e almost 25 years after the death of Boota Singh, although the suit could be filed within three years only. Even if benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is extended, even then the suit would not come within limitation period because the execution petition itself was filed almost 11 years after the death of Boota Singh and limitation period for filing the suit had expired long before the filing of the execution petition. Consequently, the instant suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. In addition to the aforesaid, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs (arising out of execution petition) held vide order dated 27.08.1998 that remedy of the plaintiffs was to file suit which could be filed within three years of the death of Boota Singh vendor. In view of said finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court also, the instant suit cannot be decreed being hopelessly barred by limitation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, 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 in limine. 06.10.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE