SUKHBIRI DEVI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as defendants) seeking decree of declaration declaring that plaintiffs are the co- owners in the allotment of the suit plot No. 13, Type A-1, Sector-26, Rohini, New Delhi and that defendant No. 5 is not the exclusive owner of the said plot in suit. Plaintiffs further sought relief for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the defendant No. 5 from selling, conveying, transferring or alienating the said plot to anyone whosoever and for restraining defendants No. 1 to 4 from delivering the physical possession and the titles of the said plot to defendant no. 5 or his nominee. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 13. 5. 2005. Against this order, plaintiffs filed first regular appeal before the Additional District Judge. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment dated 8. 12. 2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC ).

(2.) FOLLOWING substantial question of law was formulated on 3. 8. 2009:-

(3.) MR. J. C. Mahindroo, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has contended that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs on 9. 1. 1976 when the lands of Sh. Rama Nand were acquired and thereafter it arose when Sh. Rama nand died and his estate was inherited by his heirs. He argued that cause of action further arose when application for alternative plot was made by the defendant No. 5 by playing fraud and claiming himself to be the sole and exclusive heir of the deceased Rama Nand. It further arose when objection applications were made with the defendants No. 1 to 4 on various dates. He further submitted that cause of action again arose when Nahar Singh died on 14. 5. 1993 and plaintiffs being his legal heirs stepped into his shoes and again it arose when the allotment was made and then when the defendant No. 5 started holding himself to be the exclusive allottee and tried to negotiate for sale of the allotment of the suit plot and lastly on 27. 5. 2000 when defendant No. 5 finally refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs. Therefore, according to him the suit has been filed within the period of limitation of three years which started running against the plaintiffs on 27. 5. 2000 and the suit was filed on 29. 5. 2000 i. e. well within the period of limitation.