R.S.A. No. 3607 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3607 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Daljit Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Inderjit Singh and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was absolute owner of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant No.1 was the real uncle of the plaintiff. Initially, defendants were owners of the suit property but on the basis of a family settlement plaintiff had become owner of the suit property. At the time of sanctioning of mutation, the revenue officials had omitted to add one khasra number. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit filed R.S.A. No. 3607 of 2008 (O&M) 2 by the plaintiff was time barred. Plaintiff had not become owner of the suit land. The alleged judgment and decree dated 3.11.1973 and 28.12.1973 were illegal, null and void. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has become the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of judgment and decree dated 28.12.1973 passed in civil sit no.514 of 1973 by the Hon'ble court of Sh. OP.Gupta, Senior Sub Judge, Ambala as alleged in the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether mutation no.319 of village Kaulla on the basis of the above decree dated 28.12.1973 has been wrongly entered ? OPP. 3. Whether the judgment and decree dated 28.12.1973 referred above is illegal, void and liable to be set aside ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 7. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2007, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants No.1 to 4 preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, Additional District Judge, Ambala dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. R.S.A. No. 3607 of 2008 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 were real brothers. They were allotted agricultural land in India in lieu of land owned by them in Pakistan. The question that requires consideration in this case is whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.12.1973 were legal and valid. Plaintiff had placed reliance on the said judgment and decree. A perusal of Ex.P-1 reveals that in a suit filed by Inderjit Singh against Bikram Parkash and others, defendants had appeared before the Court and had admitted the case of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land was decreed. The said judgment and decree could only be set aside in case they were a result of fraud or misrepresentation. However, the said judgment and decree have not been challenged so far. In these circumstances, the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed in view of the judgment and decree Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 3, 2011 Anand