R. S. A. No. 8 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 8 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 08, 2010 Nirbair Singh @ Nirvear Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Simran Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendants no.1, 2 and 5, who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Simran Kaur-respondent no.1 filed suit against appellants and respondents no.2 and 3 seeking declaration that she (respondent no.1) is co- sharer to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit land, which was previously owned by her father Mohinder Singh. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 claimed herself to be one of the six heirs of Mohinder Singh, who owned the suit land. The plaintiff therefore claimed 1/6th share in the suit land. Defendants no.1, 2 and 5/appellants inter alia pleaded that Mohinder Singh had executed Will in their favour and consequently, they alone are owners of the suit land. However, the appellants failed to place on record the alleged Will executed by Mohinder Singh in their favour. Consequently, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated R. S. A. No. 8 of 2010 2 15.01.2007, decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent no.1. First appeal preferred by defendants no.1, 2 and 5 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2009. Hence, the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The contention cannot be accepted because the suit filed by the plaintiff was based on title and the appellants have not even raised the plea of acquiring title by adverse possession. Consequently, the plaintiff could not be non-suited on the ground of bar of limitation. Even otherwise, the suit was within limitation because the limitation period started when the title of the plaintiff was threatened and not when the mutation was sanctioned. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the plaintiff herself appeared before the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings along with other natural heirs of Mohinder Singh and admitted the aforesaid Will. The contention cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellants admits that in the order of the revenue authorities, it has simply been mentioned that all the legal heirs of Mohinder Singh have appeared and admitted the Will, but even names of the said legal heirs, who allegedly appeared before the revenue authorities, have not been mentioned in the order, nor any statement of the said legal heirs was recorded by the Revenue Officer. On the other hand, the plaintiff has denied having ever appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of sanction of mutation. No cogent evidence has been led by the appellants to prove that the plaintiff had actually appeared before the Revenue Officer and admitted the Will. In addition to the aforesaid, as noticed herein above, the whole claim of the appellants is based on alleged Will, but the said Will has not seen the light of the day. Consequently, the claim of the appellants could R. S. A. No. 8 of 2010 3 not be accepted and has rightly been negatived by the courts below. In view of the aforesaid, I find that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. January 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE