The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a decree declaring appellants' non-ownership of property. The court held there is no limitation for filing a suit for declaration as owner and the previous withdrawn suit was not a bar.
Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of fact by courts below on property ownership stand upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 4374 of 2013 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4374 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.12.2015
Smt. Sarvan and others
.. Appellants
versus
Mehar Chand and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The defendants are before this Court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondents seeking declaration as owners of the property in dispute was decreed.
The claim in the suit was that the respondents/plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from late Kanshi Ram vide registered sale deed dated 14.6.1979. They had been able to prove the genuineness of the sale deed. It was on that basis that both the courts below opined that the respondents/plaintiffs are owners of the suit property. The claim of the respondents/plaintiffs was sought to be contested by the appellants on the plea that the suit was filed nearly 20 years after the registration of the sale deed, sought to be relied upon and further earlier the plaintiffs had filed a suit during the life time of Kanshi Ram, which was dismissed as withdrawn but without any liberty to file any fresh suit. There is no merit in both the contentions as for filing a suit for declaration as owner, there is no limitation. Sale deed is a document of title. Further earlier suit was filed during the life time of Kanshi Ram, which was dismissed as withdrawn, however, after his death the mutations were sanctioned in favour of his LRs. In the subsequent suit even mutation entries were also challenged. Hence, it cannot be said that the suit in question was barred by law.
SHARMILA 2015.12.14 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh
RSA No. 4374 of 2013 (O&M)
(2)
The findings recorded by both the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
9.12.2015 sharmila
SHARMILA 2015.12.14 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed nearly 20 years after the registration of the sale deed is barred by limitation.
Whether a fresh suit can be filed after an earlier suit was dismissed as withdrawn.
Smt. Sarvan and others
Mehar Chand and others
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
