IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA 144 of 1999. Date of decision 20.4.2009. Shri Bachittar Singh (deceased) through his LRs Harbans Singh and others ….Appellants. Versus Shri Som Dutt ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants Shri Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent Shri Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This is the plaintiffs‘second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration that land bearing khasra No. 262 old and new khasra No. of which is 886 min, measuring 136.00 khewat No. 236, Khatauni No. 297, Hadbast No. 153/3, situated in Up Mohal Swarg Asharam, Nurpur Town, Tehsil 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Nurpur, District Kangra, is in the ownership of the plaintiffs and entries in the column of ownership and possession showing the defendant to be owner in possession are wrong and not binding on the interests of the plaintiffs. The case pleaded was that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land being ‘MALGUZARS HASAD RASAD MALGUZARI’ since 1916-17 till the year 1987-88 when it was described as abadi tikka. During the settlement of 1987-88, this land was wrongly shown to be in the ownership of the defendant which entries in the revenue record are not binding on their interests. This suit was resisted on a number of grounds by the defendant who pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action, no locus standi to file the suit and that the defendant has been in possession continuously for a period of more than 50 years peacefully, continuously and without interruption. The defendant pleaded that his abadi existed on the suit land for the last more than 50 years and this land was purchased for consideration from one Ibadulla Shah in February 1938. - 3 - On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court settled 11 issues. The crucial issues for determination were regarding ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and limitation. On the first issue of ownership, the learned Court considered the entire revenue record including wazib ul arz Ex. D-16 and D-17, Ex.D-1 sale deed set up by the defendant dated 8.2.1937 (Hindi version Ex.DW-2/A) showing that the suit land was purchased by the defendant from Ibadulla Shah and Habibulla Shah for Rs.95/- and also recording that possession has been delivered to the defendant. The defendant also relied on notification(s) issued by the local self government from time to time to show that settlement had been carried out in accordance with law and the area was rightly included in the municipal limits of Nurpur. One of the objections which was taken before the learned trial Court was that Ex.D-1 is not a sale deed but a receipt which argument was negatived by the learned trial Court holding that it is a sale deed. Another contention urged was that the defendant was not resident of Tikka Laghor and he had no right over the abadi and therefore, the sale deed itself is a nullity. On - 4 - consideration of material before it, the learned Court found that the land situated within the limits of Municipal Committee which fact was admitted by the plaintiffs. The Court thereafter proceeded to hold that the sale deed Ex.D-1 was valid passing a legal title to the defendant. On the question of limitation, the Court held that the possession of the defendant has been established since the year 1937 and the sale deed having not been challenged, the suit was barred by time. In appeal, these points were reiterated by the plaintiff- appellant before the learned appellate Court. On the question of limitation, the learned appellate Court holds that the plaintiff while appearing in the witness box has admitted that the land falls within the municipal area and he is a resident of mauza Laghor. The cause of action was pleaded to be from 4.9.1991 but the defence of the defendant established that the defendant was in possession of the suit land much prior to 1991 when the construction / fixing of barbed wire etc. is alleged to have been made and brick wall was constructed much earlier in point of time than pleaded by the plaintiffs. The - 5 - dispossession if any was beyond a period of 50 years. When coupled with Ex.D-1 which proved that the possession of the defendant was continuous since the year 1937, the suit was held to be barred by time. On the question of the plaintiff having no locus standi, the learned Court concluded on the basis of wazib ul arz Exts. D-16 and D-17 that residents of one abadi have no rights on the locality of another abadi. The Court came to a firm conclusion that residents of Tikka Laghor (to which the appellants belong) have no right in the municipal area of Nurpur town. On the second aspect of the matter where the appellant urged that vide Exts. P-3, P-4 and P-6 whereby the persons who were not the land owners but have built up area will continue to be in shamlat and the owners had no right to sell, mortgage etc., the Court held that this had been carried by entries in wazib ul arz Exts. P-16 and P-17. One more submission which was urged that the sale deed Ex.D-1 was invalid, the learned Court holds that the Municipal Committee, Nurpur has been in existence since more than 30 years and the land is in municipal area, therefore, the submission that the sale deed could - 6 - not be executed since the land was situated in abadi was rejected. The plaintiffs are now in appeal. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the courts below misconstrued and misread the documents Ex. D-1, P- 3, P-4 and P-6 which resulted in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs. 2. Whether the courts below are right in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation especially when the appellants had claimed cause of action w.e.f. 4th September, 1991 and the suit was filed immediately thereafter? 3. Whether the learned courts below are right in dismissing the suit of the appellants solely on the ground that the appellants had no locus standi especially when the appellants are the residents of tikka concerned? 4. Whether the courts below were right in not taking into consideration the pendency of a writ petition, i.e. C.W.P. No. 691 of 1993 titled Raj Kumar vs. State wherein stay against settlement record was given? 5. Whether the courts below have also misread and failed to appreciate - 7 - properly Ex. D-10 to D-38 in holding against the appellants? Substantial question of law No. 4 may be taken up for decision first. This question need not detain this Court as CWP 691 of 1993 has been disposed of by this Court as infructuous by its order dated 23.2.1999. Substantial question No. 2 has been considered in detail by the learned appellate Court. The Court holds on the basis of sale deed Ex.D-1 (translated copy Ex.DW-2/A) that the defendant is in possession of the suit land since the year 1937 and this piece of land is within the municipal limits of Nurpur Municipal Committee. The evidence also establishes that the plaintiff had pleaded cause of action as arising on 4.9.1991, the allegation being that it is on this date that the defendant started raising construction on the suit land, but the evidence of the defendant proves that the defendant was already in possession and had raised a wall and barbed wire /fencing etc. much prior in point of time since 1991. When coupled with the sale deed Ex.D-1, the Court holds - 8 - that the suit is barred by limitation. I cannot persuade myself to take a different view of the evidence on record even if I reappreciate the entire evidence. This question is also decided against the defendant. Having decided the question of limitation, the other points raised in the appeal would become infructuous. However, since the appeal has been admitted on the other questions, questions 1, 3 and 5 are being considered as the appellants seek to urge that there has been misreading of these documents. Ex. D-1 is the sale deed which has been executed in favour of the defendant by Ibadulla Shah and Habibulla Shah. The learned Court, on reading of the document, holds and rightly so, that this is a sale deed transferring a valid title to the defendant. I cannot persuade myself to hold otherwise. Exts. P- 3, P-4 and P-6 which are jamabandis for the year 1967-68, 1958-59 and shajra, I find that these do not advance the case of the appellants any further as it is well settled that revenue documents do not constitute documents of title. With reference to documents Exts.D-10 to D-38 are notifications - 9 - issued by the local self government and wazib ul arz, the learned Courts below have considered each and every material aspect with relation to these notifications etc. and have rightly interpreted these documents. When coupled with the admission of the plaintiff himself that the land is situated within the municipal limits of Nurpur for the last more than 50 years, there is no doubt that a valid title stands transferred to the defendant. On the question of locus standi as held by the learned District Judge, the land is situated within the municipal limits and the plaintiffs being residents of different tikka, have no right to the land situated within the municipal limits. All these questions are answered against the appellants. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. April 20, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.