R.S.A.No. 3473 of 2005(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3473 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2011 Harbans Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Kheta Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.S.C.Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.P.Kaushal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 8 and 10 to 12. Mr.Ram Kumar, Advocate for LRs of responddent No.9. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the parties were related to each other. Plaintiffs were owners of 1/7th share out of the suit land, whereas, defendant No.1 was owner to the extent of R.S.A.No. 3473 of 2005(O&M) 2 1/8th share out of the suit land. In order to cause loss to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 alienated the land more than his share vide civil suit No.219/76 decided on 26.8.1976 titled Nachattar Singh vs. Kheta Singh. Vide the said civil suit, defendant No.1 had suffered a decree in favour of defendant No.2. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Nidhan Singh, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 had six sons. Kheta Singh-defendant was son from his first wife, whereas, the other five sons namely Harbans Singh, Bakhshish Singh, Jamiat Singh, Gurnahar Singh and Jaswant Singh, predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs No.4 to 19 and defendant No.3. Nidhan Singh owned nearly 120 killas of land in village Bhullar and nearly 22 killas of land in village Sangrana. Nidhan Singh gave 178 kanals of land to Kheta Singh, his elder son, in a family settlement. On 21.11.1960, Collector, Muktsar exempted the said land from being declared surplus. In the year 1976, Kheta Singh gave 52 kanals 18 marlas of land to his son Nachhattar Singh in a family settlement and thereafter, suffered a decree dated 26.8.1976. The other five sons of Nidhan Singh had also got their shares from Nidhan Singh, which was more than the share of Kheta Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether decree dated 26.8.76 passed in civil case No.219/76 titled as Nachhattar Singh vs. Kheta Singh is illegal, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction prayed for ? OPP R.S.A.No. 3473 of 2005(O&M) 3 3. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 4.Whether plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether Nidhan Singh had already partitioned his entire property amongst six sons ? If so, its effect? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.2001. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Muktsar. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The decree in question was passed in the year 1976, whereas, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said decree in the year 1998. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. On this score alone, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. The appellants had received the copies of the jamabandi qua the suit property for the year 1989-90, wherein, Nachhattar Singh was described as owner of the disputed property. Thus, the appellants knew about the passing of the decree at that time. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to satisfy that Kheta Singh had suffered decree qua more than his share. No substantial question of law arises in this regular R.S.A.No. 3473 of 2005(O&M) 4 second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 16, 2011 anita