R.S.A.No. 2278 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2278 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2011 Dharambir ......Appellant Versus Hukam Singh @ Hukam Chand and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1990 passed in civil suit No.806 of 1989 and mutation numbers 4792 and 4795 being illegal, null and void. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 was the karta of the family. The suit land was ancestral property of the parties. Plaintiff, defendant Hukam Chand and Karambir were members of the joint Hindu family. Defendant No.1 had 4/18th share in the suit property, whereas, the plaintiff had 1/12th share in the suit property. In order to R.S.A.No. 2278 of 2009 (O&M) 2 deprive the plaintiff of his legal right, Karambir had filed a collusive suit No.806 of 1989 against Hukam Chand without impleading the plaintiff as a party. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.1990 and on the basis of the same, mutation No.4792 was sanctioned in favour of Karambir. After the death of Karambir, mutation number 4795 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.2 Prem Kaur. The decree suffered by Hukam Chand was without any legal necessity and without the consent of the plaintiff. The decree had not been registered. Defendant No.2 in her written statement averred that Hukam Chand was owner in possession of the suit land. Hukam Chand was earlier married with Shanti and plaintiff was son of Hukam Chand and Shanti. After the death of Shanti, Hukam Chand was got married with defendant No.2 and out of the said wedlock, Karambir was born. Dharambir got 3 ½ acres of agricultural land from his maternal grand-father in village Kharawar and 2 ½ acres of land in village Bhaproda from sisters of Hukam Chand through a decree. Thus, the plaintiff had got 6 acres of land. Since the plaintiff was already having 6 acres of land, Hukam Chand had suffered a decree in favour Karambir. Hukam Chand has not been heard for the last more than ten years and was presumed to be dead. It was denied that the suit property was the ancestral property of the parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No. 2278 of 2009 (O&M) 3 framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.2.1990 passed in civil suit No.806/89 and mutations No. 4792 and 4795 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as alleged.? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/12th share in the suit land mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint, as alleged OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has is barred by the law of limitation ? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2005. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.2.2009 passed by the District Judge, Jhajjar. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No. 2278 of 2009 (O&M) 4 In the present case, the plaintiff had challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.2.1990 by filing the suit on 7.12.2000. The plaintiff had admitted that he had come to know about the impugned decree after one year of its passing. Thus, the plaintiff had the knowledge of the impugned judgment and decree in the year 1991. The plaintiff has, however, filed the suit much after the period of limitation and the Courts below rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Moreover, it has come on record that the plaintiff Dharambir had got 3 ½ acres of land from his maternal grand father in village Kharawar and 2 ½ acres of land in village Bhaproda regarding which sisters of Hukam Chand had suffered decree in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff had got six acres of land. It appears that in order to have equal distribution of land between the plaintiff and his brother Karambir, the father of the plaintiff, Hukam Chand, had suffered a decree in favour of Karambir on 20.2.1990. It is probable that a family settlement had taken place between the parties and on the basis of the same impugned judgment and decree were passed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 19, 2011 anita