Salma vs Jinda and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Heard. A suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and further assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1995 passed in civil suit No. 328 of 1995 titled as Smt. Killa and others Vs. Gogar has been dismissed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

I have heard Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate appearing for the appellant.

Admittedly, the present suit was instituted by the present appellant on 30.01.2006. The stand taken by the plaintiff that it had come to his knowledge as regards the impugned decree dated 18.04.1995 only on 20.11.2005, when the defendant/respondent had allegedly come to the suit land to take forcible possession has been disbelieved by the Courts below. In this regard, it has been noticed that the property in dispute had been partitioned between the parties and Ex. DX had been adduced on record, which reflected the mutation as regards mutual partition held between the parties in terms of an agreement dated 22.01.1996. Accordingly, separate portion of the suit property was allotted to every co-sharer and the mutation had sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade in the presence of all the parties concerned.

I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Courts below taking a view that it was very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellant as regards the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.1995 and accordingly, holding the suit filed by the plaintiff to be time barred.

That apart in terms of Ex. DX i.e. copy of mutation, separate parcels of land has come by way of possession of each co-owner. Accordingly, the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land and he can not be held to be in joint possession of the suit property. Such fact stood reflected even as per the copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02, Ex. P-7. It is well settled that a simpliciter suit for declaration wherein, the relief of possession has not been sought for, would not be maintainable.

For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any basis that would warrant interference with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The appeal accordingly, is dismissed.