Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naraini Devi And Ors. vs Surinder Kumar And Ors. on 22 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)137PLR550
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Plaintiffs are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below arising out of the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owner and in possession of 4822 and 2265 shares out of 9060 shares of the agricultural land measuring 226 kanals 10 marlas according to jamabandi for the year 1976-77.
2. Defendant No. 2 to 12 were owners of the agricultural land measuring 226 kanals 10 marlas. However, vide sale deed dated 25.4.1966, 3/4 share of the land was sold by defendant Nos. 2 for 10 in favour of defendant No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 12468/-. Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 conveyed their share out of the land measuring 226 kanals 10 marlas to the extent of 56 kanals 12 marlas vide sale deed dated 30.3.1968 in the sum of Rs. 4150/- in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Thus, the entire land measuring 226 kanals 10 marlas was sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 12.
3. The suit for preemption was filed by father of the plaintiffs in respect of land measuring 120 kanals 11 marlas i.e. 4822 shares being tenant thereon. The said suit was decreed on 30.3.1972 and the preemption money was deposited. It was further alleged that on deposit of the preemption money, plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the land measuring 120 kanals 11 marlas. It is, thus, claimed that 4822 shares out of total 9060 are owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The other 2265 shares representing 56 kanals 12 marlas of land had been sold by defendant Nos. 11 and 12 in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 on 30.3.1968.
4. The grievance of the appellant is that the mutation No. 3199 was attested in respect of sale in favour of defendant No. 1 on 31.8.1967 wherein defendant Nos. 11 and 12 have been wrongly shown to be vendors along with defendant Nos. 2 to 10. In fact, defendant Nos. 11 and 12 had sold the land in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. The share of defendant Nos. 11 and 12 had remained unsold in the said khewat whereas the mutation 3222 on the basis of sale effected by defendant Nos. 11 and 12 in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 was attested on 1.9.1968. However, this mutation was cancelled wrongly on 15.4.1974 on the basis of the earlier mutation No. 3199 wherein defendant Nos. 11 and 12 had also been reflected as vendors. Since the mutations were wrongly entered and were not in accordance with the sale, plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration.
5. Learned trial Court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs but on the question of limitation dismissed the suit holding that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff after 1974 but there was no justification in not filing the suit for six years. The appeal against the said judgment and decree has also been dismissed wherein the question of limitation only was gone into.
6. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal:-
"Whether the suit for declaration of correction of the revenue entries is required to be filed within a period of three years of entry or when the cloud over the title of the plaintiffs is raised on the basis of such revenue in terms of Article 56 of the Limitation Act?"
7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the entire land ever since they purchased 120 kanals 11 marlas by a preemption decree and 56 kanals 12 marlas by way of sale by defendant Nos. 11 and 12. Thus, the defendants have claimed that they are owner in possession of 120 kanals 11 marlas of land. Plaintiffs have asserted that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 21.3.1980 when they obtained the copies of jamabandi for the years 1971-72 and 1976-77.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Ibrahim alias Dharamvir v. Smt. Sharitan alias Shanti, 1979 P.L.J. 469 has held that the right to sue in terms of Article 56 of the Limitation Act shall arise on the date when the rights of the plaintiffs are disputed or there is any cloud thereon. Such cloud over the rights of the plaintiffs arose when the wrong entries in the mutation came to their notice in the year 1980. Plaintiffs had been in possession of the land having purchased the same and the aforesaid revenue record had to be in tune with the documents of the sale in their favour. The said view has been followed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 2934 of 2000 Arjan Singh v. Jarnail Kaur and Ors., decided on December 5, 2002, by noticing the following observations which were relied upon by the Division Bench in Brahim's case (supra):-
"Under Article 120, Limitation Act, time begin to run not from the date on which an adverse entry is made in the revenue papers but from the date on which there is a fresh denial of the plaintiff's rights. If an adverse entry is made against a person who is in actual physical possession of property and if he continues to retain possession of the said property despite this entry in the revenue papers, he is under no obligation to bring a suit. If, however, his rights are actually jeopardised by the actions of assertions of the defendant then he must take proceedings within six years from the date of such actions or assertions."
9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The finding of the Courts below on issue of limitation is set aside and it is held that the suit of the plaintiffs was within the period of limitation. Thus, the suit is hereby decreed as prayed for with costs.