PIRTHI Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to a decree for possession against the defendant-appellants in respect of the suit land in view of the declaratory decree passed in their favour on 30-1-1967. According to the decree dated 30-1-1967, the sale deed dated 13-2-1959 executed by the father of the plaintiff-respondents in favour of the defendant-appellants was not to effect the reversionary right of the plaintiff-respondents in respect of the suit land and the sale deed was to remain inoperative as against their reversionary right. It has also been found that Singh Ram who was impleaded as party to the proceedings which culminated in passing a decree dated 30-1-1967 had expired on 28-7-1995 and the suit for possession as reversioner was filed on 17-8-1995 within the period of limitation. The argument based on the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1920 as amended by Punjab Act XII of 1973 has been rejected by both the Courts below by holding that the Punjab Act was not ipso facto applicable to Haryana as the same has never been adopted nor any such amendment has been carried by the Haryana Legislature.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of fact would be warranted because the decree dated 30-1-1967 has to prevail. There is no warrant in the argument which is sought to be raised again before me that the property could either be ancestral or the plaintiff-respondents could claim their right as reversioner. The aforementioned argument stands fully answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Giani Ram v. Ramji Lal and others, AIR 1969 SC 1144 which has been followed by this Court in the case of Sadhu Singh v. Harnam Singh, 1993 (1) RRR 216. In the afore-mentioned judgments it has been held that a decree for declaration obtained by one of the rever- sioners would enure benefits in favour of all who ultimately take the estate on the death of alienor and the suit for possession on the basis of declaratory decree can be filed within a period of three years from the date of death of the alienor. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Singh v. Banta and others, 2005 (8) SCC 330 : (AIR 2005 SC 4407).

(3.) In view of the above, no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the misc. application are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.