RSA No.2101 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2101 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 24.05.2011 Jagiro Devi and another ……Appellants Versus Banto and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Jagiro Devi and Ajmero Devi both daughters of Amar Singh from his first wife Bhoti Devi, have filed the instant second appeal after being non-suited by both the Courts below. In the suit, plaintiffs have challenged decree dated 18.04.1972 suffered by their father Amar Singh in favour of Banto- defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also challenged subsequent decree dated 31.05.1993 suffered by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to 8 regarding exchange of land. Suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree RSA No.2101 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - dated 30.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Plaintiffs alleged that decree dated 18.04.1972 was not suffered by Amar Singh and he was impersonated. However, plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence in support of their said contention. On the contrary, defendants examined Suresh Kumar, Advocate as witness, who had appeared for Amar Singh in the suit in which decree dated 18.04.1972 was passed and proved the written statement filed on behalf of Amar Singh admitting the claim of Banto- defendant No.1 herein, who was plaintiff in that suit. Not only that, in execution of the said decree, possession of the land was delivered to Banto-defendant No.1 herein through Bailiff in the presence of Amar Singh. It again depicts that Amar Singh was not impersonated when the said decree was suffered. Moreover, Amar Singh died on 15.12.1983 i.e. more than 11 years after the decree was suffered, but Amar Singh never challenged the said decree. Plaintiffs’ mother Bohti Devi died on 31.08.1989 i.e. more than 17 years after the consent decree was suffered, but even Bhoti Devi never challenged the said decree. It is thus manifest that the decree was suffered voluntarily by Amar Singh and the decree is legal and valid. Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on 25.03.1998 i.e almost 26 years after the consent decree dated 18.04.1972 was suffered by Amar Singh. RSA No.2101 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - Plaintiffs have no locus standi or right to challenge the said decree after 26 years. The plaintiffs alleged that Banto defendant No.1 was allegedly second wife of Amar Singh, although plaintiffs even disputed the marriage of Banto with Amar Singh. However, in suit filed by Bhoti Devi (mother of the plaintiffs), it was alleged that Amar Singh had two wives i.e Bhoti Devi and Banto. The said suit was filed in the year 1969 and in that suit, some land was transferred in favour of Bhoti Devi (mother of the plaintiffs). Even plaintiffs themselves filed an earlier suit against Banto-defendant No.1 wherein plaintiffs themselves pleaded Banto to be their step mother i.e wife of the Amar Singh. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to contend that Banto was not wife of Amar Singh. On the contrary, plaintiff No.2-Ajmero Devi while appearing as PW-1 admitted that Banto Devi lived with Amar Singh as his wife since the year 1958. Thus it is evident that defendant No.1 is wife of late Amar Singh. Plaintiffs alleged that the impugned decree dated 18.04.1972 was kept a guarded secret and plaintiffs learnt of the same when defendant Nos.2 to 8 dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land in June, 1994 pursuant to exchange decree dated 31.05.1993. This contention is completely untenable. Mutation on the basis of consent decree dated 18.04.1972 was sanctioned immediately thereafter and, therefore, plaintiffs could not be unaware of the said decree, if plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit RSA No.2101 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 - land. In fact during the life of Amar Singh, plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land. Possession of the land was taken on 07.07.1972 from Amar Singh by Banto-defendant No.1 herein in execution of consent decree dated 18.04.1972. For this reason also, plaintiffs could not have been unaware of the decree dated 18.04.1972. Moreover, plaintiffs are also not proved to have ever been in possession of the suit land. Except unreliable oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence to prove that plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the suit land. In addition to the aforesaid, Courts below have also recorded many other reasons for non-suiting the plaintiffs. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below for non-suiting the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence in any manner. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 24.05.2011. A.kaundal