R.S.A. No. 1229 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1229 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.2.2009 Narinder Kumar .......... Appellant Versus Smt. Ram Piari ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 16.12.2003 and 7.2.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for possession, as owner of half share stands dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession by raising the plea that he was owner in possession of ½ share out of 39/238 share in the land which was jointly owned by him with others. The plaintiff also challenged the sale deed No. 1962 dated 23.6.1986 executed by the plaintiff along with his brother. The sale deed was challenged on the plea that plaintiff / appellant was minor at the time of execution of sale deed and, therefore, the sale deed did not affect his right of ownership. R.S.A. No. 1229 of 2006 2 The suit was contested wherein the plea of the plaintiff / appellant that he was minor on the date of execution of the sale deed was contested. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff / appellant was not minor on the date of execution of the sale deed. It has also been held by the learned Courts below that even if the date of birth of the appellant / plaintiff is taken to be 15.7.1972 still the suit was barred by limitation as he chose not to file the suit on attaining majority. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below can be sustained as the limitation to file a suit was 12 years and not three years ? 2. Whether the learned Courts below were right in rejecting the school leaving certificate produced by the plaintiff / appellant ? The learned counsel for the appellant contends that limitation for claiming possession was 12 years and the learned Courts below wrongly rejected the proof of age. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff was not only one of the signatories to the sale deed but had also participated in the registration of the sale deed. He had the knowledge of sale but he chose not to challenge the R.S.A. No. 1229 of 2006 3 sale deed within a period of three years, it is a question of debate as to whether without getting sale deed set aside, the plaintiff could claim possession of the suit land by claiming limitation to be 12 years. The learned Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff / appellant was major at the time of execution of sale deed as he has failed to prove that he was minor. The learned Courts below rightly rejected Ex. P-1 firstly for the reason that it was not a birth certificate from the Registrar of Births and Death but it was only a school leaving certificate which was not even issued by any statutory Board. The witness produced to prove the birth certificate categorically admitted that the entries were based on the certificate issued by the Primary School which was not on record. No other evidence was led to prove the date of birth. The learned Courts below therefore rightly rejected the certificate as there was no other evidence to prove the date of birth. The learned Courts below have recorded finding of fact on appreciation of evidence. The substantial questions of law raised do not arise for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 26.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE