ROMESH KUMAR Vs. KAKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09- 01-2024 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Jammu [ "the trial Court "] in civil suit File No. 9040/40/Civil/2011 titled Romesh Kumar v. Kaka Ram and anr, whereby the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds of challenge and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to notice few material facts:-

(3.) The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that the sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 herein dtd. 28/6/2001 is illegal, in-operative and non est in the eye of law. He also prayed for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, the respondent herein, from interfering in the possession/user of the land in question etc. etc. The suit was filed on 9/2/2011. In the plaint, the appellant disclosed 30/10/2010 as the date on which he acquired knowledge about the execution of the impugned sale deed so as to bring his suit within the limitation. The suit was contested by the respondents, who, in their written statement, pleaded that prior to the filing of the instant suit, the appellant had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same land in the Court of learned Additional Munsiff, R. S. Pura. That suit was filed by the appellant on 19/9/2001. The respondents herein appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement and brought it to the notice of the Court that the subject land has been sold by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 vide sale deed dtd. 28/6/2001. A preliminary issue was struck in the said suit and the same was decided against the appellant. The order, dismissing the suit, passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, R. S. Pura dtd. 21/8/2002 would indicate that the appellant was aware about the execution of the sale deed in the year 2002 itself and did not challenge the same for almost nine years. It is thus submitted that the suit was barred by limitation.