JAGAN NATH Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30. 1. 1978 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat and against the judgment dated 13. 4. 1979 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that Tara Chand (plaintiff) filed a suit against the defendants seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of l/3rd share of agricultural land measuring 50 Kanal 14 Maria situated in the area of village Khataur, Police Station Gharaunda, Tehsil Karnal. He further sought the declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 5. 7. 1968 registered on 8. 7. 1968 purporting to be executed by him and defendants No. 1 to 5 and the sale deed executed and registered on 17. 12. 1973 by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants No. 8 to 11 and pattanama dated 7. 12. 1973 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 7 were null and void as against him in respect of his share of the above mentioned land. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants No. 1 to 5 (who are close relations of the plaintiff) and one Ramsarup son of Udhmi colluded together and executed the sale deed dated 8. 7. 1968 in favour of Sudha @ Sardha (defendant No. 6) and in the said sale deed they falsely included the name of the plaintiff as a co-vendor whereas the plaintiff never executed any such sale deed nor he received any money as mentioned in the sale deed. It was further alleged that subsequently defendant No. 6 executed a pattanama dated 7. 12. 1973 in favour of Jagan Nath son of Munsi (defendant No. 7) for 20 years and later on defendant No. 6 sold the entire land including the plaintiffs share by the sale deed dated 17. 12. 1973 in favour of defendants No. 8 to 11 (who are appellants in the present appeal ). It was further alleged in para 4 of the plaint that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. In para 6 of the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 8. 7. 1972 when the plaintiff got the copy of jamabandi from Patwari and after getting it read out to him, he discovered that his share had been wrongly sold away by the defendants No. 1 to 5 to defendant No. 6. It may be mentioned here that this suit was filed by the plaintiff on 13. 8. 1974.

(3.) MR . Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was clearly barred by limitation. In this connection he drew my attention to Article 56 of the Limitation Act and submitted that in terms of the said Article, limitation for filing such a suit was three years from the date when the cause of action arose. He submitted that admittedly the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of Sudha @ Sardha (defendant No. 6) on 5. 7. 1968 and was registered on 8. 7. 1968. He further submitted that though in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff came to know about the said sale deed on 8. 7. 1972 when he got the copy of the jamabandi from Patwari but in his cross-examination, the plaintiff clearly stated that he came to know after a period of three Years that his share of land had been sold. He further submitted that though in the plaint, it was stated that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit (i. e. 13. 8. 1974)but the learned trial court has given a clear finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and this finding had not been disturbed by the learned first Appellate Court. He further submitted that the learned first Appellate Court rejected the contention of the appellants on the limitation point without assigning any reason. The learned counsel further submitted that since the sale deed in question was duly registered with the Sub Registrar concerned, the endorsement of the Sub Registrar was an important piece of evidence to establish the execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff. He, therefore, contended that, the learned first Appellate Court was not correct in rejecting this contention of the plaintiff.