R.S.A. No. 629 of 2007 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 629 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2008 Ram Kishan ..Appellant v. Jag Ram and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this court against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration and injunction was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit challenging mutation No. 96 dated 3.1.1925 with the plea that Dewa, who had gifted the land to Jag Ram (respondent No.1) was not the owner of the land. Both the courts below dismissed the suit on merits as well as being time-barred. The appellant-plaintiff sought to claim that he was owner in possession of the suit property. However, there was no documentary evidence to support the claim except his oral statement. In the record, Jag Ram was shown to be absolute owner in possession of the suit land. The possession continued from 1960-61 onwards. Even during the consolidation proceedings, mutation No. 185 was sanctioned and separate khatas were made. Even at that time, the appellant- plaintiff did not challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. His plea that the entire proceedings were at his back was not borne out from the record, as no evidence was led to substantiate the plea. The statement of the appellant- plaintiff that he was in possession of the suit land was found to be contrary to the evidence produced on record. The appellant-plaintiff even admitted in his cross- examination that the land falls in two khatas, which were separated at the time of consolidation which necessarily mean that the appellant-plaintiff was in knowledge of the revenue entries consistently coming in favour of respondent-Jag Ram. The plea of ignorance was taken just to bring the suit within the period of limitation. What was sought to be challenged in the suit was a mutation, which was entered way back on 3.1.1925 and the revenue record prepared on the basis R.S.A. No. 629 of 2007 [ 2] thereof. The suit was filed on 16.5.1994. Such a hopelessly time-barred and belated claim could not be adjudicated upon by the Court and it has rightly non- suited the appellant-plaintiff. The findings recorded by both the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.11.2008 mk