AJAIB SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was decreed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Harbans Singh purchased the land measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas, bearing Khasra No. 58/21/1 out of the joint Khata No. 384/440 mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1960 -61, situated in village Basarke, Tehsil and District Amritsar, from Amin Chand and Hans Raj, on the basis of registered sale deed dated March 7, 1968 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/ -. Both Amin Chand and Hans Raj died in due course and their legal heirs were brought on record. According to the plaintiff, due to mutual mistake of the parties, the sold land was described in the sale deed as Killa No. 57/21/1 instead of Killa No. 58/21/1. The plaintiff filed a suit on May 14, 1976 for correction of the mistake crept in the sale deed dated March 7, 1968, and also for possession of the land falling in Killa No. 58/21.1. It was mentioned in the sale deed that the land in question was under mortgage with Massa Singh and Ajaib Singh for a sum of Rs. 850/ - vide registered mortgage deed dated December 18, 1965 for a period of 10 years. The mistake in the killa number allegedly came to the notice of the plaintiff after the period of mortgage had expired on December 18, 1975 when he wanted to take steps to get the property redeemed from the mortgagees.

(3.) The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by limitation. According to him, the alleged sale had taken place on March 7, 1968, but the present suit was filed on May 14, 1976. Thus according to the learned Counsel the number of the property cannot be changed after eight years of the alleged sale In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the Single Bench authority of this court reported as Sarupa and Ors. v. The Panchayati Akhara, Kala Bara Udasian, Thanesar, and Ors. , wherein it has been held by the learned Judge that right "to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises" It has further been held by this Court that the suit "must be instituted when right asserted in the suit is infringed or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by defendant against whom suit is instituted."