R.S.A. No. 2835 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2835 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.01.2009 Bhagat Singh ....Appellant Versus Ompati (dead) by L.Rs. & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The appellant has challenged the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 12.8.2004 and that of the learned first Appellate Court dated 6.8.2007. A suit was filed by the appellant for declaration to the effect that he and respondents No.2 to 8 were owners in possession to the extent of 10/81 share each and respondent No.1 to the extent of 1/81 share in the suit land and mutation No.1843 entered and sanctioned after the death of his father Ram Sarup showing the respondent No.1 as owner in possession to the extent of 1/9 share is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 8 as the suit land was ancestral and R.S.A. No. 2835 of 2007 -2- coparcenary in the hands of Ram Srarup being inherited from his forefathers. Respondent No.1 contested the suit and raised objections regarding maintainability of the suit, concealment of true and material facts, limitation and estoppel, etc. It was asserted that the mutation in question had been entered and sanctioned as per the law. It was asserted that the suit property in the hands of Ram Sarup was not a coparcenary property and that she had been in possession of the suit land to the extent of her share from the date of death of her father Ram Sarup and this fact was in the knowledge of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 8. The trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendants are co- sharers in the suit property according to their share? OPP 2. Whether mutation and subsequent entries in favour of defendant No.1 is null, void and illegal?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit.?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing he present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 7. Relief. R.S.A. No. 2835 of 2007 -3- The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish that the land was ancestral, and also that the suit was barred by limitation. It was concluded that respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit property to the extent of her share to the knowledge of the appellant and respondents No.2 to 8. The mutation in question was sanctioned on 20.12.1981 and the death of Ram Sarup took place on 19.3.1981. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the suit filed in the year 2000 was clearly barred by limitation. The mutation was sanctioned on 20.12.1981 after the death of Ram Sarup on 19.3.1981. This fact was also incorporated in the revenue record and the respondent No.1 was also put in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of her share inherited. Once the mutation and revenue record as also the possession was to the knowledge of the appellant, the same could not have been challenged after a lapse of almost 19 years. The finding of the Courts below that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be termed to be perverse or contrary to the law. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. 20.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss