Makhan Singh And Another vs Ram Asra And Others on 24 December, 2008

R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008                                       ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                         C.M No.12728-C of 2008 and
                                         R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008


                                         Date of decision : December 24, 2008


Makhan Singh and another
                                               ...... Appellants.

                                 through Ms.Savita Saxena, Advocate

                          v.

Ram Asra and others

                                               ...... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

                                ***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

C.M No.12728-C of 2008

For the reasons stated therein, C.M is allowed and delay of 10

days in filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A No.4246 of 2008

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the

Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 with regard

to the property left behind by the parties’ father in village Sohali.

Counsel for the appellants has stated that in an earlier suit the

father of the parties had made a statement that the entire property belongs to

the appellants but in the decree some-how the property at Sohali was not

mentioned. It is, thus, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants
R.S.A No. 4246 of 2008 ::2::

that the Court could not have decreed the suit regarding village Sohali in

view of the clear intendment of the father of the parties.

In my opinion, it would not be open for the Court to go behind

the earlier decree. Admittedly, the earlier decree did not mention the

property of village Sohali.

The second argument of counsel for the appellants is that the

plaintiff/respondent No.1 had admitted that he had come to know about the

earlier decree in the year 1990 itself, yet he filed the suit after more than 12

years.

The Courts below have rightly rejected his suit qua that part of

the property which was mentioned in that decree. With regard to the

property at village Sohali, since the same was not mentioned in that decree,

the suit on the basis of title cannot be held to be barred by limitation.

Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is

dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                          ( AJAY TEWARI              )
December 24, 2008.                             JUDGE
`kk'