IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 RSA-557-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.:21.04.2025 Sardar Singh and Others …..Appellants Vs. Ramsarup and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Pree Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for declaraon and permanent injuncon regarding property in dispute filed by plainffs Sardar Singh and others (appellants herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 25.01.2014 and the findings have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court on 18.10.2016, while dismissing the appeal of the plainffs/appellants. Against the concurrent findings, the present appeal has been filed by the plainffs. 2. Along with the appeal an applicaon bearing No.CM-1619-C- 2020 is moved to condone the delay of 907 days in re-filing the appeal. It is stated in the applicaon that Clerk to the counsel for the appellant had collected the paper-book along with other appeals on 20.02.2017 but inadvertently he put the paper-book of this case in the rack of admi3ed cases and later on when the present file was traced, the appeal has been filed. 3. There is absolutely no jusfiable reason to condone the long delay of 907 days in filing the appeal. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed being barred by the limitaon. Applicaon bearing No.CM-1619- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-557-2020 (O&M) -2- C-2020 is disposed of accordingly. Main case.: 4. Though the appeal is found to be barred by limitaon, even if it is considered on merits, it is found to have no substance therein. 5. The case of the plainffs was that they were owner in possession of more share in the suit land comparing to what has been shown in the impugned mutaon No.138 dated 10.06.1993 and that defendants-respondents are shown to be co-owner of larger area comparing to what they deserved and so, the revenue entries were liable to be corrected accordingly. It was pleaded by them that judgment and decree dated 23.01.1991 was passed in favour of the plainffs and so, their shares should have been corrected accordingly. Defendants- respondents opposed the suit by submi7ng that suit land had been paroned amongst the pares vide mutaon No.633 dated 30.01.1999 but that paron order was never challenged by the plainffs. It was further pointed out that judgment and decree dated 23.01.1991 relied by the plainffs did not affect their- (defendants’) rights as they were not party to the same. Sll further, it was contended that cause of acon, if any, had arisen to the plainffs way back in 1999, when the paron order was passed and as such, the suit filed in 2010 was barred by limitaon. 6. Both the Courts below disbelieved the case of plainffs and also found the suit to be barred by limitaon and so, dismissed the same. 7. Assailing the concurrent findings, Learned counsel for the appellants contend that evidence on record has not been property appreciated. 8. There is no merit in the contenon. It will be apt to reproduce the observaons as made by the first Appellate Court which read as under: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-557-2020 (O&M) -3- “14. A;er having heard both pares at length and scrunizing the findings given by the trial court, this court has come to the conclusion that the bone of contenon on part of plainff-appellants is that they have more shares than the shares reflected in revenue record. Be that as it may, the first opportunity to challenge the revenue record showing less share recorded in favour of the plainff-appellants came when paron proceedings between the pares were going on before Revenue Court. However, from 1999 to 2010 no suit was filed by the plainff for correcon of their shares. It is impossible that the plainff-appellant did not noce that less land was allo3ed to them in paron proceedings. Thus, by no stretch of imaginaon, it can be inferred that cause of acon arose to the plainff-appellant when the present suit was filed. This court is of the considered opinion that at the most cause of acon arose to the plainff- appellant when mutaon Ex.D5 was sanconed on 13.07.1999 in pursuance of order of learned Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tosham dated 30.01.1999 and thus, the present suit is hopelessly me barred. 15. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for appellant-plainffs while arguing has tried to put a cart before the bullock. The sale deeds Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D3, Ex.D4 and their respecve mutaons Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P10 were sanconed on basis of descripon of land before consolidaon and the share given was in bigha and biswa. It has not been disputed between the pares that consolidaon had taken place in between 1985 to 1987 and therea;er, the map of the land in dispute was prepared on square system and the land was also described in revenue record as such. The contenon of learned counsel for appellant-plainffs that 100 share as per Ex.D1, 60 share as per Ex.D2, 100 share as per Ex.D3 and 100 share as per Ex.D4 can be made basis for determining the shares of the appellant-plainffs a;er consolidaon, carries no weight. During consolidaon, the shares of respecve shareholders may be reduced or enlarged keeping in view the quality of land. The aforesaid ambiguity could have been cleared by the appellant- plainffs by producing on record consolidaon records i.e. Hakdarwar, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-557-2020 (O&M) -4- gathwar, Khatoni Istemal, Khatoni Paymish etc., but none of the record has been produced by the appellant-plainffs in this case. The present suit was filed on the basis of revenue record prepared a;er consolidaon. Therefore, the present appellant-plainffs have miserably failed to prove that 100 share sold by Matu Singh and so on did not change during consolidaon proceedings. 16. This court is also of the considered opinion that the present appellant-plainffs or their predecessor have filed a suit in the year 1990, the judgment and decree of which is Ex.C3 & Ex.C4 respecvely. It is apparent by perusal of judgment and decree that the present defendant respondents were not made party to that proceedings and a consent decree was obtained against vendors of the present defendant- respondents and therefore, the said judgment and decree is not binding upon the present defendant-respondents. It is also clear that the mutaon of present appellant-plainffs, who filed civil suit No.59 of 1990 decided on 23.01.1991, the judgment of which is Ex.C3 and decree is Ex.P4, was the act on fraudulent basis. This fact is clear from decree sheet, wherein the property is described as per jamabandi pertaining to the year 1965-66 whereas at that me consolidaon had taken place and therea;er jamabandi pertaining to the year 1986-87 Ex.D10 was in existence showing therein killa numbers based upon square system and thus, present appellant-plainff cannot take benefit of aforesaid judgment and decree. 17. This Court is also of the considered opinion that in the year 1990 when above Civil suit was file, it was within the knowledge of the appellant-plainffs that there was some mistake or incorrect descripon of area/share incorporated in the jamabandi pertaining to the year 1987-88, but intenonally the present defendant-respondents were not made party to that suit. Consequently, the cause of acon also arose to the appellant plainffs in the year 1990 when the suit was filed and therefore, the present suit is hopelessly me barred.” NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-557-2020 (O&M) -5- 9. It is evident from the aforesaid observaons, which are based upon the evidence produced on record that paron proceedings between the pares concluded in 1999 and the mutaon dated 13.07.1999 Ex.D-5 was passed pursuant to the order dated 30.01.1999 of Assistant Collector Grade-II, Tosham. So, cause of acon arose to the plainffs in January, 1999. In these circumstances, suit filed in 2010 has been rightly held to be barred by limitaon. 10. Not only above, it has been rightly observed by the appellate court that in the judgment & decree dated 23.01.1991 Ex.C-3 and C-4 as relied by the plainffs, they referred to the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 to describe the suit land, instead of the latest jamabandi and not only this, defendant to the present suit were not party and as such, the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1991 was not at all binding upon the defendants. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to convince this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings returned by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence on record. As such, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. No merits. Dismissed. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 21, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.04.22 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document