Wasat vs Imam Khan and Others

Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—This is plaintiff''s second appeal arising out of O.S. No.191 of 2006, which was dismissed on 03.01.2007 by Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff appellant filed Civil Appeal No.12 of 2007, which was dismissed on 03.10.2011 by A.D.J. Court No.11, Muzaffarnagar, hence this second appeal.

The relief claimed in the plaint was for declaration that sale deeds dated 22.02.1980 and 08.06.1988 were void and should not be given effect to. The plaint case was that plaintiff and his real brother Sharafat were bhoomidharsin possession of half portion of Plot No.697, total area 7 bighas 13 biswas 15 biswansis; that on the date on which first sale deed was executed i.e. 22.02.1980, plaintiff was 11 years of age and Sharafat his brother was 13-14 years of age. Sharafat was not made party in the suit. Allegation was that one of the brothers Liyakat turned dishonest and sold the property showing the sale deed to have been signed by plaintiff and Sharafat also. It was not stated in the plaint that Wahid Khan father of the plaintiff had how many sons, whether apart from plaintiff, Sharafat and liyakat there was any other son or not? The deed of 28.02.1980 was in favour of Islam Khan. Thereafter Islam Khan died and his sons defendants No.1 to 3 sold the property to defendants No.4 to 8 on 08.06.1988.

Even if the version of the plaintiff that he was 11 years old in 1980 is accepted then he became major in 1987. Suit was filed in 2006 i.e. after more than 18 years of attaining the majority. In Para-9 of the plaint, which is Annexure-I to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in this appeal, there is a mention about a sale deed dated 11.08.1977 also however no details of said sale deed have been given. It was also stated in the same para that plaintiff being minor was residing with her mother in a village in Meerut and even at the time of filing of suit he was residing at Meerut. Property in dispute is situate in a village of District Muzzafarnagar. Both the districts are adjacent to each other. Names of the purchasers were also mutated in the revenue records just after the sale deeds. Even Liyakat was not made party in the suit.

Even though before the trial court defendants did not appear however trial court held the suit to be hopelessly barred by time. In Para-9 of the plaint it was further stated that in 2006 plaintiff contacted one Sattar in the village where land in dispute is situate in connection with settlement of marriage of his son and only then he came to know about the sale deeds. If plaintiff was born in 1969 as alleged by him and married at the earliest age of 21 years (in 1990) then in 2006 his son must be 15 years of age by maximum, hence there was no question of settlement of his marriage.

In the appeal before the lower appellate court respondents appeared. Lower appellate court fully agreed with the findings of the trial court that the suit was utterly barred by time.

From the plaint allegations it is quite clear that till the filing of the suit, plaintiff was not having any concern with the land in dispute.

I do not find least error in the findings recorded by the courts below holding the suit to be barred by time. Second appeal is therefore dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, C.P.C. Order.