RSA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.953 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Piara Lal ……Appellant Versus Karamjit Singh and others …….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. CM No. 2600-C of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (herein referred as ‘the plaintiff’) for declaration claiming himself to be the owner in possession of land measuring 15 Marlas along with Atta Chaki and Rice Sheller etc., was dismissed by the trial Court at Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 19.01.2006. His appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiff has claimed his right over 15 Marlas of land comprised of Khasra No.18//4/2/2 (0-15) on the basis of sale deed dated 17.06.1981. Similarly, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 having purchased some land, 1 RSA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) are threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit land Then, he filed a Civil Suit No.382 dated 03.09.1986 for permanent injunction, which was decided by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurdaspur, on 03.02.1990, holding the plaintiff to be in possession of the land. Then on sanction of the mutation No.3035 in favour of the plaintiff, he has again filed this suit. Upon notice, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the cause by filing written statement, wherein they raised some preliminary objections, inter alia, that the suit is time barred and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. On merits, it was submitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased about 2 Kanals 10 Marlas of land comprised of Khasra No. 18R/4/2/1 adjoining the suit land, but the plaintiff had encroached upon 7 Marlas out of the said land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas, purchased by them, as such, they had to file a suit for possession of 7 Marlas, which was decreed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurdaspur, on 09.05.1992. In the appeal, filed by the plaintiff, a compromise was effected between the parties, wherein Piara Lal-plaintiff had made a statement that he is in possession of 15 Marlas of land bearing Khasra No. 18R/4/2/2 and he has no concern with the land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas bearing Khasra No.18R 4/2/1 and he would not interfere in their possession. Consequently, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 14.05.1993, passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the defendants. However, the plaintiff, in violation of the said judgment and decree, started raising construction. Consequently, the defendants had to move an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, which was pending. It was also averred that the revenue authorities, on the basis of the sale deed qua the land purchased by the plaintiff and the defendants, sanctioned mutation No.2788 on the basis of possession and a tartima plot was also made at that time. The plaintiff was given 14 Marlas area, vide the 2 RSA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) said mutation, bearing Khasra No.18R 4/2/2 with the boundaries; North - 4 Karams, South - 4 Karams, East - 32 Karams, West - 32 Karams, whereas the defendants were given possession of the plot bounded as; North- 19 Karams, South – 9 Karams, West – 34 Karams and East – 32 Karams. The parties were delivered possession according to the tartima plot sanctioned by the revenue authorities. But, despite that while suppressing the material facts, the plaintiff in connivance with the revenue authorities, got a new mutation No.3035 sanctioned in his favour. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether mutation No. 3406 as corrected by defendant No.3, is null and void, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether suit is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 19.01.2006, dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also met the same fate. Admittedly, Pritam Singh was the owner of the total land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas, comprised of Khasra No.18R 4/2/1 and 4/2/2. It is also not disputed that the land measuring 15 Marlas bearing Khasra No.18R/4/2/2 on the east-southern side was purchased by the plaintiff for `1500/- from Pritam Singh vide sale deed dated 17.06.1981 and the land measuring 2 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised of Khasra No.18R/4/2/1 min north- western was purchased by Karamjit Singh and Darshan Singh (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) for a consideration of ` 5000/- vide sale deed dated 17.06.1981. Thereafter, mutation No.2788 was sanctioned. A tartima plot was also prepared, wherein the plaintiff was given 14 Marlas of land and the 3 RSA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) defendants were given remaining portion of the land. The plaintiff never disputed the said mutation No. 2788 at any time till the year 2003 when the present suit was filed. Actually, it appears that the total area was 3 Kanals 4 Marlas, out of which Pritam Singh had sold 2 Kanals 10 Marlas to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiff was wrongly sold 15 Marlas on the same day. In the light of the fact, the dispute arose regarding 1 Marla and as such with a view to solve the dispute, with the consent of the parties the plaintiff was given one Marla less. Consequently, mutation No. 2788 was sanctioned. A tartima plot of 14 Marlas was carved out of the area, which was given to the plaintiff. Even the said mutation has not been challenged by the plaintiff by way of present suit. Without getting the earlier mutation cancelled, he got new mutation No.3035 sanctioned in his name and filed the present suit. As such, the present suit being time barred, was also not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant case. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) December 12, 2011 Judge ajp 4