RULDA RAM Vs. SANJU RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2013 passed by the District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2011. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiffs" for convenience sake) filed a suit seeking decree for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 13, 94, 68, Khata Khatauni No. 45 min/83 min measuring 0 -13 -15 hectares as recorded in the copy of jamabandi for the year 2004 -05 and the mutation of exchange bearing No. 3179 dated 20.8.2002 is illegal, null and void. They have also sought consequential relief of injunction restraining appellants -defendants (hereinafter referred to as "defendants" for convenience sake) from alienating the suit land. The suit land comprised of fruit bearing trees. Plaintiffs have sold the fruits of suit land in favour of defendants from the year 2002 to 2007 by way of an oral agreement. However, in the last week of July, 2008, defendant again entered into the suit land and started plucking fruits from the suit land. Plaintiffs objected to the same. Defendant disclosed to them that suit land has been exchanged in the revenue record and now he is owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs inquired from the Patwari Halqua who disclosed that mutation No. 3179 dated 20.8.2002 was entered in favour of defendant qua the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, mutation No. 3179 was got entered by the revenue authorities behind the back of plaintiffs. Cause of action accrued to plaintiffs against defendant firstly in the month of July, 2008 and finally prior to the institution of the suit when plaintiffs came to know about mutation No. 3179 dated 20.8.2002.

(2.) SUIT was contested by defendant. According to the defendant, fruit bearing trees on the suit land have been planted by him. He has denied that plaintiffs sold fruits of the suit land to defendant from 2002 to 2007. According to him, plaintiffs have exchanged the suit land with the defendant and mutation No. 3179 was entered in this regard on 20.8.2002. Defendant is in cultivating possession of the suit land and has improved the suit land. He has raised orchard over the suit land. He has denied that plaintiffs visited the suit land in the month of July, 2008.

(3.) MR . Sunil Mohan Goel has vehemently argued, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, that the suit was barred by limitation. He then contended that both the courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. He lastly contended that plaintiffs should have challenged the mutation attested on 20.8.2002 before the revenue court.