HARDAM SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 3-Hardam Singh has filed the instant petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.9.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned trial Court placing onus of issue No. 4-A as to whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondents No. 1 to 6 is within limitation, upon the petitioner instead of the plaintiffs. Annexure P-1 is the copy of plaint. The suit was filed for seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are co-owners in joint possession of land measuring 132 kanals 4 marlas. The claim of the plaintiffs is based on a registered Will dated 30.8.1978, executed by Jaggar Singh @ Ujjagar Singh in favour of his sons, namely; Pritam Singh, Hardam Singh, Jarnail Singh father of the plaintiffs and his wife Basant Kaur. Learned trial Court initially framed the issues on 17.9.2010 but thereafter the petitioner filed an application dated 25.9.2014 (Annexure P-3) for framing of additional issue regarding limitation. The additional issue as framed by the learned trial Court is "whether the suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation" but the trial Court has wrongly placed onus of the said issue upon defendants.

(2.) It is contended that Jaggar Singh @ Ujjagar Singh whose estate is involved died on 19.1.1986 and mutation of inheritance of his estate was also sanctioned on 22.1.1987 on the basis of natural succession. Now the mutation is being challenged at a belated stage. Reference is also made to the allegations contained in the plaint that cause of action for filing the present suit arose on the death of Jaggar Singh @ Ujjagar Singh and on 22.1.1987 when the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned. It was further pleaded in the plaint that a few days back the plaintiffs came to know about the above mistake in the revenue records when defendants No. 6 to 9 started threatening the plaintiffs to get the alleged share of defendants No. 4 and 5 transferred in their names or to sell the same.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and find no merit in the instant petition. I say so for the reasons that the instant suit is for declaration of title on the basis of registered Will and such a suit can be barred by limitation only on the strength of plea of adverse possession of defendants for the statutory period having matured into ownership. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that it is for the plaintiff to prove prima facie that the suit was within time when it was instituted but different articles of Limitation Act would apply in view of the nature of lis.