RAMESH CHAND Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2009 passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking declaration, that the plaintiff/respondent was owner in possession of the property in dispute, stands decreed.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are, that the property was belonging to Rupe Chand i.e. father of the parties. He suffered a decree in favour of all his sons. In the said decree, the land comprised in Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 18 measuring 8 kanals 0 marla was given to the plaintiff/respondent and mutation was also duly sanctioned, in pursuance to the said decree. The respective parties were shown to be in possession, however, in the revenue record Killa No. 18 (8 -0) was shown to be in possession of the appellant/defendant. It was in view of this, that the plaintiff on coming to know filed a suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) THE learned lower appellate Court has reversed the findings by recording finding, that once it was not disputed that the civil Court decree passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, included the disputed property and mutation was also duly sanctioned. The suit could not have been dismissed merely on the basis of revenue entries. The learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding on limitation by holding that the limitation was to start from the date of knowledge. Once the suit was filed within three years of the date of knowledge, the same could not be said to be barred by limitation. The learned lower appellate Court also reversed the finding qua non -joinder of necessary parties in holding that there was no dispute with any other decree holder, thus could not be said to be necessary or proper party. The dispute was only with regard to Killa No. 18, which though allotted to the plaintiff/respondent was entered in the name of the defendant/appellant.