Amarjit Singh and Anr. Vs Dilbagh Singh and Ors.

D e fendants No.7 & 8 are the app e llants before this Court challen g ing the judgment a nd decree dated 28.02.1989 passed by the learned trial C ourt decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the r espondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs and the judgment d ated 08.04.1994 passed by th e learned 1^st Appellate Court v ide which the app e al preferred by them against t he aforesaid judgment and d e cree passed by the l e arned trial Court, has been dis m issed.

¶15

F o r the sake of convenience, the p a rties shall be referred to in ter m s of

¶16

their status bef o re the learned trial court.

¶17

S u ccinctly, the facts of the case a re that, the suit property origi n ally belonged to M u slim evacuees prior to 1947, n a mely Sher Mohammad and ot h ers, who had mortg a ged the land to Puran and Batna, sons of Kura, in equal shares, and

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶19

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -2-

¶20

both mortgage e s had taken physical possessio n of the same prior to the year 1 9 47. After the migration of the evacuees to Pakis t an, Puran and Batna continued in possession as m ortgagees, and the property, h aving become composite prop e rty, was later put t o auction on 23.05.1959 purs u ant to an order dated 12.05.1 9 58, where Puran a n d Batna emerged as the highe s t bidders and paid the full au c tion price of ₹400/ - , which stands recorded in the District Competent Officer’s o rder dated 23.07.19 5 9 confirming the sale in their f avour. The plaintiffs being hei r s of deceased Pura n and Batna had asserted excl u sive possession of the suit lan d as owners after t h e death of both Puran and Bat n a, alleging that Puran died wit h out leaving any heir and that their long and cont i nuous possession has matured into ownership by adverse possession. They fur t her alleged that despite repeated applications to defendants No.1 to 5 for sa n ction of mutation, the Comp e tent Revenue Offic e r refused on the pretext that t h e original file containing the o rder dated 23.07.1959 was untraceable, and that d efendants No. 1 to 5 deliber a tely withheld the fi l e with mala fide intent to clou d the rights of Puran and Batna and their heirs. It w as their further case that, in con s equence of this fraudulent con d uct, the Tehsildar ( S ales) illegally issued a parchi a llotment in favour of defendant No. 6, mutation was wrongly sanctioned in his fa v our, and defendant No. 6 there a fter sold the land to defendants No.7 and 8, in whose favour mutation was also sanctioned. All e ging fraud and illegality in the allotment made to Ujagar Singh, the plaintiffs soug h t a declaration that they had b ecome owners by way of ad v erse possession, alo n g with an alternative prayer for possession. 4. U p on notice of the suit, the appe l lants-defendants appeared and f iled written statem e nts taking objection that the pl a intiffs had an alternative reme d y to seek enforcem e nt of the Competent Officer’s order through the State Comp e tent

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶22

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -3-

¶23

Officer, Chan d igarh, and further averring t h at Puran and Batna had ne i ther obtained a war r ant of possession nor a sale c e rtificate and that possession o f the land remained w ith the Central Government u n til its allotment to Ujagar Singh. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concer n with the payments allegedly m ade by Puran and B atna, as they had not obtained any succession certificate and w ere not legally rec o gnised heirs, and that since bot h Puran and Batna had died wit h out leaving any le g al heir, ownership of the land vested in the Central Govern m ent which validly allotted it to Ujagar Singh th r ough the Tehsildar (Sales). It was further pleade d that the plaintiffs had raised n o objection at the relevant time and were now esto p ped by their act and conduct f r om instituting the suit; and tha t the relevant allotm e nt record was consigned to th e Director, Land Records, Jalan d har. Defendants No.7 and 8 had denied that the la n d was ever purchased by Puran and Batna and asse r ted that it belonged to the Cen t ral Government, which was fu r ther allotted to Uj a gar Singh, and was thereaf t er validly sold to them for full consideration, p ursuant to which mutation was rightly sanctioned. Further it was claimed that th e y were in actual cultivating po s session and recorded as such i n the khasra girdaw a ri since 1983–84. Furthermore, they denied that the land was ever mortgaged to P uran or Batna, instead alleged t h at the plaintiffs had slept over t heir rights, and also raised objections of limitation a nd estoppel. Defendants No. 11 and 12 filed writte n statement asserting that the pl a intiffs were heirs of Batna only and not of Puran, claiming themselves to be Pura n ’s heirs on the basis of a registered Will dated 24. 0 7.1970, and contending that a ft er Puran’s death, both parties w ere jointly in host i le possession of the suit land and supported the plaintiffs to the extent of alleg i ng that the allotment to Ujag a r Singh and the subsequent sa l e in favour of defe n dants Nos. 7 and 8 were illegal, fraudulent and without jurisdic t ion.

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶25

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -4-

¶26

They prayed f o r relief in favour of themselves and the plaintiffs as heirs of P u ran and Batna. All other averments in the plaint w e re specifically denied and dism i ssal of the suit was p rayed for.

¶27

O n the basis of pleadings, learne d trial Court had framed as ma n y as thirteen issues including relief. On appreciati o n of oral as well as docume n tary evidence prod u ced before it, the learned trial C ourt decreed the suit of respon d ents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs and the appeal preferred b y the appellants-defendants No.7 and 8 was also dis m issed by the learned 1^st Appell a te Court. Hence, the regular se c ond appeal.

¶28

L e arned counsel for the appella n ts contends that both the C o urts below have gravely erred in decreeing the suit o f respondents No.1 to 3, which was hopelessly tim e barred. It is argued that t h e limitation for filing the sui t for declaration un d er Article 58 of the Limitation A ct, 1963 (for short the Act of 1 9 63) is three years f r om the date when the right to s u e first accrues, which in the pr e sent case accrued o n 23.07.1959 when the auction sale deed dated 26.05.1959 was allegedly confi r med in favour of Puran and Ba t na. It is further argued that the suit is even barred by limitation if the cause o f action is taken to be accrue d on 25.09.1980 wh e n the suit land was allotted in favour of Ujagar Singh (defendant No.6 before t h e learned trial Court) and 0 3.02.1981 when appellants h e rein purchased the s ame from Ujagar Singh, as t h e suit was filed on 03.01.1985 i.e. beyond the pe r iod of three years. Once the c lock of limitation starts ticking, it never stops. I n support of his contention, he r elies upon the judgment passe d by the Hon’ble S u preme Court in Rajeev Gupta and others Vs. Prashant and others 2025 INSC 552 .

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -5-

¶31

L e arned counsel for the appella n ts further submits that respon d ents No.1 to 3-plain t iffs have failed to prove that allotment to Ujagar Singh with respect to 1 kanal and 3 marlas of land was the same p r operty, which was allegedly so l d in auction to Pur a n and Batna. Puran and Batn a never obtained sale certificate and warrants of po s session from the competent aut h ority nor their names were refl e cted as owners of t h e suit property in revenue reco r ds, rather the land in dispute t o the extent of 1 kan a l 3 marlas was shown to be all o tted in favour of Ujagar Singh v ide mutations Nos.2025 and 2026 on the basis of w hich appellants had purchase d the same being the bona fide purchasers. It is an a d mitted fact that allotment in fa v our of Ujagar Sing h with respect to 1 kanal 3 mar l as of land was never challenge d by respondents N o .1 to 3-plaintiffs. Therefore, learned counsel for the appel l ants prays for setti n g aside of the judgments and decrees passed by both the C o urts below.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for t h e respondents No.1 to 3-plain t iffs, contends that o nce the suit land was sold in auction by the District Comp e tent Officer and the bid amount of Rs.400/- was ac c epted and deposited in the trea s ury, the sale had co m pleted and the government ha d no vested right or title to allo t the same subseque n tly and thus, any allotment the r eafter was null and void in the e yes of law. In su p port of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed b y the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India and others (2007) 5 SCC 745. Without cancelling the a uction sale confirmed in favo u r of Puran and Bat n a, any parchi allotment made in favour of Ujagar Singh b y the Tehsildar, as alleged by the appellants is non e s t and not legally valid. It is fu r ther argued that mu t ation entry in the revenue recor d does not confer title and the ti t le is

¶33

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶34

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -6-

¶35

to be proved b y producing valid document, wh i ch appellants had failed to brin g on record.

¶36

H a ving heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal o f the record with th e ir able assistance, this Court fi n ds no merit in the appeal pref e rred by the appellan t s.

¶37

T h e argument raised by learned c o unsel for the appellants that the suit filed by respon d ents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs was b a rred by limitation as per Article 58 of the Act of 1963 is wholly misconceived an d bereft of merit. Article 58 o f the Act of 1963 deals with obtaining any other de c laration than the declaration so u ght in Articles 56 a nd 57 of the Act ibid and for t h e same limitation period is fix e d as three years fro m the date when the right to s u e first accrues. However, wher e the suit is not si mp ly for the declaration of title rather it is for a further relie f for recovery of po s session, it would be governed b y Article 65 of the Schedule t o the Act of 1963, a c cording to which limitation fo r recovery of possession based u pon title would be 12 years. Further, when in a s u it for declaration of title, a fu r ther relief is claim e d in addition to mere declarat i on, the relief of declaration w o uld only be an anci l lary one and for the purposes o f limitation, it would be governe d by the relief that h as been additionally claimed. T he Hon’ble Supreme Court i n the judgment pass e d in N. ThajudeenVs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037 has held as u nder:-

¶38

“ 2 1. The limitation for a suit fo r declaration is provided under P art II I of the Schedule to the Limit a tion Act, 1963. It is governe d by A r ticles 56-58 of the Schedule t o the Limitation Act. Under al l the af o resaid three Articles, the limi t ation for a suit for declarati o n is th r ee years. The limitation provi d ed under Articles 56 and 57 o f the Sc h edule to the Limitation Act is in respect to declaration regar d ing fo r gery of an instrument issued or registered and validity o f the

¶39

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶40

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -7-

¶41

a d option deed. Article 58 of t h e Schedule to the Limitation Act pr e scribes the limitation for decr e e of declaration of any other k ind and therefore, the suit for decla r ation of title would essentially fall under Article 58 of the Sched u le to the Limitation Act and the li m itation would be three years fr om the date when the right to sue fir s t accrues.

¶42

22 . In the case at hand, the suit is n ot simply for the declaration o f title ra t her it is for a further relief fo r recovery of possession. It is t o be no t ed that when in a suit for de c laration of title, a further reli e f is cl a imed in addition to mere de c laration, the relief of declar a tion w o uld only be an ancillary one a n d for the purposes of limitati o n, it w o uld be governed by the relief t hat has been additionally clai m ed. The further relief claimed in the suit is for recovery of posse s sion ba s ed upon title and as such its li m itation would be 12 years in t e rms of A rticle 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.”

¶43

In C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed UnnissaAIR 1961 SC 808, it has been laid dow n by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t that in a suit for declaration w i th a further relief, t h e limitation would be governed by the Article governing the suit for such further re l ief. In fact, a suit for a declar a tion of title to immovable pro p erty would not be barred so long as the right to su c h a property continues and sub s ists. When such ri g ht continues to subsist, the relief for declaration would b e a continuing rig h t and there would be no limita t ion for such a suit. The principle is that the suit f o r a declaration for a right can n ot be held to be barred so lon g as Right to Prope r ty subsist.

¶44

In Indira v. Arumugam (1998) 1 SCC 614, the Hon’ble Sup r eme Court has held a s under:-

¶45

“ 5 . It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on titl e for po s session, once the title is est a blished on the basis of relevant do c uments and other evidence u n less the defendant proves ad v erse

¶46

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶47

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -8-

¶48

po s session for the prescriptive p e riod, the plaintiff cannot be n onsu i ted…..”

¶49

F u rthermore, the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in Mallavva and Another Vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (Since Dead) by Legal Heirs and Others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3846 where the suit was filed for declaration of title and possession, has held as under:-

¶50

“ 30. The submission on the part of the appellants herein is tha t the s u it would be governed by Arti c le 58 of the Limitation Act a n d is li able to be dismissed being tim e barred whereas the submissio n on t h e part of the respondents (or i ginal plaintiffs) is that the suit is g o verned by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and even on the d ate w hen the First Appellate Court p ermitted the plaint to be amended, t h e same was well within limitati o n. 3 1 . It is well settled that when t h ere are several reliefs claimed in a s u it, the limitation period wou l d be that of the main relief, the limitation for ancillary relief b e ing ignored. The argument o f the l e arned counsel appearing f o r the appellants herein is not s u stainable in law as it proceed s on the assumption as if old Article 1 4 2 of the earlier Limitation Ac t was in force wherein the pla i ntiff w ho based his case on title h a d to prove not only title but also p o ssession within twelve years of the date of the suit. The said p r ovision of law as observed aforesaid has undergone a metap h oric s e a change as we find under the Limitation Act. Article 65 rea d s as u n der:-

¶51

“Descripti o n of Suit Peri o d of Time from which period tlimit a tion begins to run 65. For po s session of immovable property or Twel v e When the possession of t he any interes t therein based on title. years defendant becomes adve r se to the plaintiff.”

¶52

It is, therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on titl e for p o ssession, once the title is es t ablished on the basis of rele v ant d o cuments and other evidence u n less the defendant proves ad v erse

¶53

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶54

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -9-

¶55

p o ssession for the prescriptive p eriod, the plaintiff cannot be n ons u ited. [See : Indira v. Arumuga m , (1998) 1 SCC 614.]”

¶56

In the instant case, as suit fo r declaration and for issuanc e of permanent inj u nction against defendants (inc l uding appellants herein) was f iled from interfering in the plaintiffs’ exclusive p ossession of land bearing Kh e wat No.53, Khatau n i No.87, Khasra Nos.12/17 an d 24/1 measuring 5 kanals 11 m a rlas situated in the area of village Manjgarh, Te h sil and District Hoshiarpur; and in alternative suit for possession of the share land along with other declaratory reliefs. Since the resp o ndents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs had sought declaratory relief along w ith possession, Article 65 of the Act of 1963 will come into operation and the limitation peri o d for the same would be 12 ye a rs and not 3 years, unless and u ntil the defendants prove their adverse possession against the plaintiffs. Admitt e dly, defendants No.7 & 8 (appellants) had failed t o prove adverse possession ag a inst plaintiffs. Firs t time, name of Ujagar Singh-de f endant No.6 was entered as all o ttee in the jamaban d i for the year 1980-81 and the s uit was filed in the year 1985, t hus, the same was w ithin limitation as per Article 6 5 of the Act of 1963. Moreover, the judgment relie d upon by learned counsel for t h e appellants in Rajeev Gupta’s case (supra) does n o t come to rescue of the appell a nts, as in the said case initiall y the suit was filed for cancellation of the regis t ered sale deeds with recover y of possession. Ho w ever, the same was sought to b e given up to project as thoug h the suit was only f or possession to wriggle out the clutches of limitation but the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation und e r Article 59 of the Act of 1 9 63. Thereafter, reli e f of declaration was sought to b e inserted by way of amendme n t in the plaint in th e course of first appeal to give t he same a colour as though the suit was for posses s ion based on title, obviously to cover the limitation period u n der

¶57

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶58

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -10-

¶59

Article 65 of the Act of 1963, which was reject e d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an after-thoug h t and in that eventuality, it w as held that cancellation was the primary relief in the circumstances with recov e ry of possession being the anci l lary relief.

¶60

T h e appellants had to prove thei r title based on the title of Ujagar Singh from w h om they allegedly purchased 1 kanals 3 marlas of suit land. T heir whole case wa s that the government had allot t ed land to Ujagar Singh by w a y of parchi allotme n t but the order of allotment had never seen light of the day. Ra t her, defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. official defendants in para No.4 of their written state m ent on merits had a dmitted the contents of para N o .4 of the plaint to the extent tha t the land in dispute had become composite propert y and the competent officer vid e his order dated 23.07.1959 had confirmed the sa l e but Batna and Puran etc. ne i ther obtained the w a rrant of possession nor the sale certificate. A perusal of order d ated 23.07.1959 Ex . P2 passed by the District Co m petent Officer, Hoshiarpur re v eals that in the said order, office was directed to p u t up forms F & G in two days and issue sale certi f icate and warrants of possessio n today. Once a direction was given to issue sale c e rtificate and warrants of possession on the same day, there was no evidence brou g ht on record to show that sale certificates and warrant s of possession wer e issued to the Puran and Batna b y post or any other means. Ra t her, a bald plea wa s taken that they did not turn up t o collect the same. Further, in p ara No.7 of the wr i tten statement of defendants N o .1 to 5 on merits it was stated that since Central G overnment was owner in poss e ssion of the suit land, the land was allotted to Uj a gar Singh, defendant No.6 b y the Tehsildar (Mahal-cum-sales), Hoshiarpur. I f it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the land in dis p ute remained unde r ownership of the Central Go v ernment due to the fact that P u ran

¶61

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶62

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -11-

¶63

and Batna did n ot turn up to collect the sale certificate and warrants of posses s ion, it is not comprehendible as to why the gov e rnment did not prefer any appeal against the jud g ment and decree passed by the l earned trial Court decreeing the suit of respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs for decl a ration and for alternative reli e f of possession for t he share of Batna only wherea s defendants No.10 to 12 along w ith one Dalbir were held entitled to succeed to th e estate of Puran. Why they di d not come forward to protect their title, had at all it b een their case that ownership o f the suit property r e mained with them after Puran and Batna did not come forwa r d to obtain the sale certificate as well as the war r ants of possession is the ques t ion, which remaine d unanswered, meaning thereb y , judgments and decrees passe d by both the Court s below have attained finality qu a them. Therefore, in the opini o n of this Court, onc e the sale was confirmed, the g o vernment had no right or title o ver the property to allot the same to Ujagar Singh - defendant No.6. Mere entry i n the revenue recor d does not confer title in the a bsence of any valid docume n t of ownership, wh i ch is conspicuously missing in the present case with respe c t to Ujagar Singh- d efendant No.6 and as a co n sequence thereto, with respe c t to appellants here i n-defendants No.7 and 8. 16. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou r t in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, ques t ions of law are not required t o be framed in sec o nd appeal before the Punja b and Haryana High Court w h ose jurisdiction is c ircumscribed by provisions of S ection 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

¶64

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶65

RSA No.1999 of 1994 (O&M) -12-

¶66

A s an upshot of above discussio n , this Court finds no illegality and perversity in t h e concurrent finding of fact ren d ered by both the Courts below and the same is up h eld. The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶67

Pending misc. application(s), if an y , also stand disposed of.

¶68

( AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ) JUDGE November 13, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶69

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.11.19 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Amarjit Singh and Anr. v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Amarjit Singh and Anr. v. Dilbagh Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Kaur etc. Vs Har Mohinder Singh etc.

Iqbal Singh etc. Vs Kundan Singh etc.

Gurjant Singh & Ors. Vs Sadhu Ram & Ors.

Chander Wati Vs Sheo Devi

Sardar Khan Vs Mohmmad Rafiq

Kulbir Singh etc. Vs Balwinder Singh etc.