- (1.) CM No. 1776-C of 2012: This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 21 days delay in filing the present second appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit. In view of the averments made in para No. 2 of the application sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Prayer is allowed, delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. R.S.A. No. 626 of 2012 1. The defendants/appellants are in second appeal before this Court impugning the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Plaintiff-Faquiria s/o Baja filed a suit for declaration in terms of pleading that initially, one Kala s/o Sobha had sold some land to Jiwan Singh father of defendant-Jeet Singh in the year 1945. Such sale deed had been challenged by Baja on the ground of pre-emption being a collateral and co-sharer. The suit filed by Baja was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.1948. It was pleaded that on the basis of such judgment and decree, possession was delivered at the spot to Baja in the execution proceedings and mutation No. 648 relating to the land pertaining to village Rajgarh had been entered in his name. The present suit land pertains to the village Majra and on the basis of warrant of possession issued in the execution proceedings mutation No. 2006 had also been sanctioned on 06.04.1965 pertaining to the land of village Majra in the name of Baja s/o Hira. The appeal had been filed against the sanctioning of mutation No. 2006 but the same was dismissed on 25.01.1966. The revision filed against the order dated 25.01.1966 had been decided in favour of the plaintiff on 15.04.1968. As such, the order of mutation dated 06.04.1965 had not been implemented in the earlier jamabandis. Baja father of plaintiff had remained in possession of the suit land and after his death, the plaintiff had become owner in possession of the same. Baja during his life time had mortgaged his 1/2 share in the suit land with certain muslim mortgagees whereas, the plaintiff continued to be owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of remaining 1/2 share. However, on account of a mistake at the hands of the Revenue Authorities, name of the plaintiff had not been incorporated in column No. 4 pertaining to the ownership in the jamabandi. As such, it was pleaded that on account of the wrong entries in the revenue record, the defendants had been threatening to take steps to alienate the suit property and as such the suit had been instituted.
(2.) The suit was contested and in the written statement filed by the defendants, it was stated that the suit land was standing in the name of Jiwan Singh father of the defen-dant-Jeet Singh in the revenue record from the year 1960-61. It was stated that the suit land was belonging to some muslims, who had left for Pakistan and as such, the suit land is in possession of the defendants as owner. It was further stated that the judgment and decree relied upon by the plaintiff does not relate to the suit land and even it is proved that the decree pertains to the suit land even then limitation for execution of the decree had elapsed. The plaintiff remained silent over a period of 37 years as regards the implementation of such mutation in the revenue record. The defendants himself came to be in possession as owner of the suit land and even set up a plea of adverse possession over the suit land in dispute.
(3.) The trial Court after having heard respective counsel for the parties and having scanned the evidence led on record, decreed the suit and held the plaintiff and declared him to be the owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share in place of defendant-Jeet Singh in land measuring 1 kanal, 12 marlas situated in village Majra, Tehsil Kharar and held the entries in column No. 4 and of the jamabandi showing the defendants to be the owner to the extent of 1/2 share pertaining to the suit land to be wrong and against the record. The defendants were also restrained from alienating the suit property by way of sale, gift or in any other manner and were further restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The civil appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2011.;