R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Kanta Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Inderaj and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Inderaj and Bhim Singh filed a suit for possession, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Dabwali vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005. Defendant No.1 Sushil Kumar filed an appeal against the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 and 3. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of defendant No.1. R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. In brief, the case of the respondents is that they filed a suit for possession of the suit land mentioned in head note of the plaint and the same is situated within the revenue estate of village Chautala. Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Through this suit, prayer was made that respondent No.1 be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants qua the suit land and the appellants be restrained to alienate the suit property in any manner. It is also alleged that the sale deed bearing No.1281 dated 5.8.1988 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the appellants has been set aside, therefore, they are entitled to get the land equivalent to the land which respondent No.1 agreed to sell in their favour. They also prayed that in case the land is not given to them then they be allowed to claim the consideration of the sale deed, registration charges and other expenses and the suffering of mental agony. Since they have contested the suit up to the Hon'ble Apex Court though they lost the battle. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the appellants. They have denied all the averments of the respondents. It is averred that respondent No.1 was not the owner of R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the suit property, therefore, he was not competent to sell the same in favour of the appellants. The appellants were supposed to verify the title of the respondent No.1 and then they should have purchased the suit land but this has not been done by them. Smt. Saraswati Devi was owner in possession of the sit land and the title of the respondent No.1 came to an end in the year 1986 when decree in favour of respondent No.1 was set aside by the Court. It is also alleged that the appellant got the sale deed executed when respondent No.1 was under the influence of liquor because he was addicted to it and no consideration was paid to him and in this way, the appellants are not entitled for anything from the respondents and prayer has been made that the suit of the respondents be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide purchaser of the land measuring 45 kanals 18 marlas, as detailed in para No.2 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the suit land measuring 45 kanals 18 marlas detailed in the head note of the plaint, as prayed for? OPP R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 4 2-A In case, issue No.2 is declined, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation i.e. loss suffered by them, if in affirmative then how much ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the principle of resjudicata? OPD 4-A Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands, hence, they are not entitled to any relief? OPD 10. Relief. ” Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was hopelessly time barred. The plaintiffs could have filed the suit within three years from the date they had R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 5 been dis-possessed from the suit land. The plaintiffs had been dis- possessed from the suit land in the year 1999. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record has held that defendant No.2, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, has deposed that the possession was taken from the plaintiffs in the year 1997 and hence, the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was set aside. Thereafter, the parties litigated up to the Apex Court. The decision of the Apex Court was rendered on 26.10.1998. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1999 could not be held to be time barred. The sale deed in question was executed by Shushil Kumar, who was not competent to execute the same but had accepted the sale consideration from the plaintiffs at the time of its execution. Hence, the Courts below rightly ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of sale consideration etc. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 18, 2009 anita