R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2009 Ramesh Chand ....appellant versus Kishan Chand ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2009 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking declaration, that the plaintiff/respondent was owner in possession of the property in dispute, stands decreed. The undisputed facts are, that the property was belonging to Rupe Chand i.e. father of the parties. He suffered a decree in favour of all his sons. In the said decree, the land comprised in Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 18 measuring 8 kanals 0 marla was given to the plaintiff/respondent and mutation was also duly sanctioned, in pursuance to the said decree. The respective parties were shown to be in possession, however, in the revenue record Killa No. 18 (8-0) was shown to be in possession of the R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M) -2- appellant/defendant. It was in view of this, that the plaintiff on coming to know filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned lower appellate Court has reversed the findings by recording finding, that once it was not disputed that the civil Court decree passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, included the disputed property and mutation was also duly sanctioned. The suit could not have been dismissed merely on the basis of revenue entries. The learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding on limitation by holding that the limitation was to start from the date of knowledge. Once the suit was filed within three years of the date of knowledge, the same could not be said to be barred by limitation. The learned lower appellate Court also reversed the finding qua non-joinder of necessary parties in holding that there was no dispute with any other decree holder, thus could not be said to be necessary or proper party. The dispute was only with regard to Killa No. 18, which though allotted to the plaintiff/respondent was entered in the name of the defendant/appellant. The learned lower appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has held the plaintiff/respondent to be owner in possession of the suit property and decreed the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellate contends that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court mis-read the evidence to record a finding in R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M) -3- favour of the plaintiff/respondent?" In support of the first substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that revenue entries were entered in the name of defendant/appellant in the year 1978 and, therefore, the suit, if any, to challenge the revenue entries could have been filed within three years of the entry, thus, the suit filed in the year 2005 was barred by limitation. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, as admittedly the decree was in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, and mutation was also duly sanctioned. The suit was filed within three years of knowledge. It could not be said that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned lower appellate Court rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial Court. On the second substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is outcome of mis-reading of the documentary and oral evidence. It is also the contention that learned lower appellate Court has not met with the reasoning given by the learned trial Court to dismiss the suit. The finding is, thus, perverse. This plea also cannot be accepted. Once it is not in dispute that under the civil Court decree, the property in dispute was given to the plaintiff/respondent, and he was put in possession. Therefore, revenue entries, in absence of proof of handing back of possession by the plaintiff/respondent in favour of the defendant/appellant could not be relied upon in preference to civil court decree. It is settled law that civil court decree prevails over entries in revenue record. It cannot be said R.S.A. No. 1628 of 2009 (O&M) -4- that the judgment and decree is outcome of mis-reading of evidence or perverse. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 07, 2009 R.S.