RSA No.3252 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3252 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2009 Lachhaman and others ......Appellants Versus Jogi Ram and others ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.9083-C of 2007 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. LRs of respondent No.1 as mentioned in the application are ordered to be brought on record. RSA No.3252 of 2007 This is plaintiffs’ second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that mutation bearing No.1131 in favour of Ishwar instead of plaintiffs and subsequently revenue entries on the basis of that mutation are null and void. As pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiffs filed a suit on the averments that their father Jasmant was owner of 43 Kanals 17 Marlas of agricultural land in village Narar. He died intestate in August, 1978 and was survived by the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. However, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of one Ishwar besides the present plaintiffs. They came to know of this mutation only on 7.9.1998 when they obtained a copy of jamabandi from Patwari. According to them, the said mutation No.1131 attested on 22.4.1979 is illegal, null and void as Ishwar RSA No.3252 of 2007(O&M) 2 had no right, title or interest in the land in question. It was further pleaded that said Ishwar had also died and after that the present defendant Banti tried to get a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour as mother of Ishwar. However, the plaintiffs objected to the said mutation and so the matter was referred to AC Ist grade. The defendant was threatening to alienate the share of Ishwar. Hence, the suit seeking a declaration that mutation No.1131 in favour of Ishwar was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant be restrained from alienating the land in dispute. The defendant in her written statement pleaded that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with clean hands and had suppressed the true and material facts. The mutation in question was sanctioned 20 years back in the presence of the plaintiffs and was rightly sanctioned in favour of three children of Jasmant, namely, plaintiffs and Ishwar who was also one of the sons of Jasmant deceased. It was further pleaded that the application filed for partition of the land and the objection petition filed by the plaintiffs clearly prove the relationship of Ishwar with Jasmant. So, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. While deciding issue No.1 and 2, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging mutation Ex.P2 on the ground that it was wrongly sanctioned in favour of Ishwar or that Ishwar was not a legal heir of Jasmant. It was further held that the plaintiffs have also not disputed the relationship of Ishwar with defendant-Smt. Banti as mother and son and, therefore, they have no case at all. Issues No.3 to 8 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. However, in view of the findings on issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the RSA No.3252 of 2007(O&M) 3 District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 3.5.2007. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. The contention of the counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs alone had the right to succeed to his property being his son and daughter and Ishwar had no relationship with Jasmant and, so he was not entitled to succeed to the property of Jasmant and hence the mutation of inheritance of 1/3rd share in his name was wrong and cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the suit land was owned by Jasmant who died in the year 1978. The impugned mutation of inheritance was sanctioned on 22.4.1979 which was never challenged before any authority for more than 20 years. It was only after the death of Ishwar that this mutation was challenged in the present suit which was filed on 17.7.1999. The submission of the counsel for the plaintiffs that they were not aware of the said mutation and came to know about the same only in 1998, is unnatural and unbelievable. After the death of Ishwar, the mutation of inheritance of his share was entered in the names of the present plaintiffs as his brother and sister. This mutation was contested by defendant-Banti claiming herself to be the mother of Ishwar. These proceedings were contested before the revenue authorities and all along the plaintiffs were claiming before the revenue authorities that Ishwar was their brother being the son of Jasmant while Banti had no relation with Ishwar. In these circumstances, when the plaintiffs had been claiming themselves to be the brother and sister of Ishwar and they having not challenged the mutation of inheritance Ex.P-2 for 20 years cannot be permitted to take a contradictory stand that Ishwar had no relation with Jasmant. The case as set up by the plaintiffs is full of contradictions. Before the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs were asserting that Ishwar was RSA No.3252 of 2007(O&M) 4 the son of Jasmant and so, they were entitled to succeed to his property as brother and sister. But in the present case, they are asserting that Ishwar was not related to Jasmant in any manner. In the civil suit the plaintiffs had taken a specific stand that they are not related to Ishwar. If the plaintiffs are not the brother and sister of Ishwar, then they cannot succeed to his property and will have no locus-standi to challenge the mutation of inheritance of the property of Ishwar. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 22, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE