R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 12, 2010 Udey Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Charan Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Udey Singh alias Umed Singh, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff's case is that his father Mohar Singh along with latter's three brothers Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram jointly purchased 17 bighas 10 biswas land, as described in para 7 of the plaint. The plaintiff accordingly claimed that he and proforma defendants no.17 to 22 being legal representatives of Mohar Singh are joint owners in possession of 1/4th share of the suit land measuring 108 kanals 18 marlas. Defendant no.1 Parbhati and defendants 10 to 15 (heirs of Het Ram) in their written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff. R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 2 However, later on, defendant no.1 filed application for withdrawal of his written statement as well as testimony and later on, for amendment of written statement, but the same were declined. Defendants no.2 and 3 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that only Ganga Ram, Het Ram and Parbhati had purchased 17 bighas 10 biswas land in question, whereas they along with Mohar Singh (all the four brothers) had purchased 09 bighas 10 biswas land mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint and mutations were sanctioned accordingly. They have been owners in possession of the suit lands accordingly. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2008, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendant no.1 Parbhati admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, admission made by Parbhati cannot bind the other defendants. Moreover, even Parbhati wanted to withdraw his aforesaid admission. Similarly, admission made by defendants no.10 to 15 in favour of the plaintiff cannot bind the other defendants. R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that defendant no.2 also appeared as PW-2 and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, said admission would also not bind the other defendants. There is sale sanad issued by Government regarding 17 bighas 10 biswas land in dispute in favour of Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram only and not in favour of Mohar Singh jointly with them. The said sale sanad is of the year 1944. Mutation (Ex.P-5) on its basis was also sanctioned in the year 1944. Since then, Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram and their successors have been recorded to be owners in possession of said 17 bighas 10 biswas land in the revenue record continuously. The instant suit was filed by plaintiff on 17.02.1995 i.e. more than half century after the date of sale sanad and sanction of mutation on its basis in favour of Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram only. The sale sanad clearly states that aforesaid land was purchased only by three brothers Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram in execution proceedings. Plaintiff's father Mohar Singh was not co-purchaser with them. Oral evidence of the plaintiff is not sufficient to rebut the aforesaid documentary evidence. Sale of the aforesaid land was made in favour of the three brothers Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram in execution proceedings by the Court. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's father Mohar Singh was also co-purchaser with them in the said sale. In addition to the aforesaid, the suit is also hopelessly barred R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 4 by limitation. As noticed herein above, the sale took place in the year 1944 and even mutation was sanctioned in the year 1944 and thereafter, revenue entries continuously depicted Parbhati, Ganga Ram and Het Ram and their successors to be owners in possession of the aforesaid land excluding Mohar Singh and his successors. However, the suit was filed in the year 1995 i.e. after more than half century. To wriggle out of this situation, learned counsel for the appellant contended that plaintiff being co-sharer in joint possession was not required to file suit earlier as his ownership and possession were never threatened earlier. The contention, although apparently attractive on first blush, is completely devoid of merit. The plaintiff, while appearing in the witness-box, stated that his father Mohar Singh had come to know in the year 1962 that his name did not appear in the mutation in question and in the subsequent revenue record. However, Mohar Singh, who died in the year 1966-67, as per testimony of the plaintiff, did not challenge the said mutation or revenue entries during his life time and did not claim any share in the aforesaid land. It would depict that Mohar Singh knew that he was not co-purchaser of the aforesaid land with his brothers. Even after his death, plaintiff himself remained silent since 1966-67 till the year 1995. Consequently, the suit has been rightly held to be hopelessly barred by limitation. In view of consistent revenue entries for more than half century before filing of suit, it is also not proved that plaintiff or his father ever remained in joint possession of the aforesaid R. S. A. No. 1480 of 2010 5 land. Cloud over title of plaintiff's father was also cast when plaintiff's father came to know in the year 1962 that his name did not figure in the mutation and subsequent revenue record. Consequently, cause of action had accrued at that time, but the suit was filed 33 years even thereafter. The suit is thus hopelessly barred by limitation. Both the courts below have rightly non-suited the plaintiff. Findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference ini second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being devoid of merit. July 12, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE