The High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by Panmeshwari challenging a judgment and decree that upheld a registered release deed. The court held that Article 59 applied and the defendant's continued possession invalidly reversed the trial court's finding.
The second appeal was dismissed.
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.3402 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3402 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.22.11.2018
Panmeshwari and another
...Appellants
Vs
Jaipal ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the appellants.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.8961-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 9 days
in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
C.M. No.8962-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 6 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.3402 of 2016
The appellants-plaintiffs have not been successful before
the lower Appellate Court in defending the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs filed in the year 2011 for laying challenge to the registered release deed dated 24.12.2003.
The suit aforementioned was filed on the premise that defendant, real brother of plaintiffs had taken them in the office of
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.03 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
RSA No.3402 of 2016 (O&M)
Registrar for the purpose of execution and registration of the power of attorney but converted the same into release deed, therefore, there was fraud and misrepresentation. Mutation to that effect was also not effected, much less, jamabandi to that effect also reflected the identical situation. On noticing all these facts, the trial Court decreed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has committed illegality and perversity in reversing the well reasoned finding of the trial Court. The provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act would not come into play but of Article 59. Even the latest jamabandi also showed ownership of the aforementioned property.
I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Makkar is not sustainable. It would be apt to reproduce Article 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act as under:-
| 58 To obtain any other declaration |
Three years | When the right to sue first accrues. |
|---|---|---|
| 59 To cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract |
Three years | When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded firs tbecomes known to him. |
The limitation to challenge a registered document as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act is three years. It is common practice amongst litigants to keep silent and rake up the cause of action as and when desired to bring the case within the provisions of Article 59 without establishing threat to title or possession. No doubt in some cases where actual fraud has been pleaded, the Legislature in its wisdom has kept the interest of such litigants intact but in the instant case, best possible evidvence in order to bring the case within Article
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.03 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
RSA No.3402 of 2016 (O&M)
59 i.e. khasra girdawari has been withheld. That would have been a clincher to establish that possession was with the plaintiffs and not with the defendant. In such circumstances, adverse inference is inevitable. The lower Appellate Court is not only last court of law but fact also, therefore, the finding rendered by the lower Appellate Court cannot be faulted with.
I do not intend to subscribe to the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant to form a different opinion than the one arrived at by the lower Appellate Court, much less, no subtantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 22, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.12.03 11:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 58 or Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies to challenge a registered release deed.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is sufficient to warrant condonation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Panmeshwari and another
Jaipal
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
