[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir vs Yashpal And Others on 16 January, 2026
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112 RSA-2858-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.01.2026
Dalbir ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Yashpal and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate and
Mr. Deep Inder S. Walia, Advocate
for the appellant.
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CM-10043-C-2023
Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the accompanying
appeal.
2. Heard.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed
and delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-10044-C-2023
Prayer in this application filed under 151 CPC read with Section
5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 734 days in refiling
the appeal.
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -2-
2. The only reason cited by learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant in the abovesaid application for condonation of 734
days delay in refiling the appeal is as under:-
"3. That as on 03.06.2019, there was summer vacations upto
30.06.2019, the RSA remained in office of the Registry during
this period. When the brief was brought by the clerk of the
undersigned after opening of the Hon'ble High Court, it was
found that last seven pages of the brief including power of
attorney were found missing. Accordingly, letter was written to
the appellant for sending fresh power of attorney and
accordingly it took considerable time. As the fresh power of
attorney was sent by the appellant, the RSA is being refilled in
this Hon'ble High Court on 16.12.2019. Thereafter, registry
again raised certain objections on 20.01.2020. Thereafter, due
to outbreak of Covid-19, the file of misplaced in the office by
the clerk as termites had destroyed the office wood work as
well as the files. Due to this very reason, the file got misplaced
and thus, in this process there occurred delay of 734 days in
refilling the present appeal."
3. The said reason is vague and does not constitute sufficient
cause to condone extraordinary delay of 734 days in refiling the present
appeal.
4. It is cardinal principle of law that delay of each day has to be
explained. In this regard, reference may be made to a recent judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 titled as
Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others, 2025
INSC 1104 decided on 12.09.2025, Law Finder Doc Id # 2777666, wherein it
is held that each day's delay has to be explained in a mathematical manner
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -3-
which has not been done by the applicant-appellant. No cogent reason or
plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant for condonation
of such an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the accompanying
appeal. Moreover, condonation of such an inordinate delay would be
tantamount to declaring the law of limitation obsolete/redundant, without
any justification.
5. As such, no ground is made out for condoning inordinate delay
of 734 days. Present application accordingly stands dismissed.
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M)
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff No.1
against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Court
below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellant and performa
respondents No. 8 to 10 herein, for declaration with consequential relief
of injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that defendant No.6/respondent No.6, namely, Ram Kali, was owner in
possession of agricultural land measuring 17K-16M/suit property. Ram Kali
is the mother of the plaintiffs. She was earlier married to Surjan. Out of
the said wedlock, no child was born and Surjan had died. Thereafter, Ram
Kali had solemnised kareva marriage with Arjan, adopted son of Inder. Out
of kareva marriage of Ram Kali with Arjan, plaintiffs were born. It was
pleaded that the plaintiffs being sons and daughters of Ram Kali, was
entitled to inherit suit property after her death; and that Ram Kali had no
right to further transfer her share of the ancestral land to someone else. It
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -4-
is further pleaded that plaintiffs are in actual physical and cultivating
possession of suit property. However, in October 2008, plaintiffs had
discovered that Ram Kali had alienated the suit property in favour of
defendant No.1- Yash Pal, defendant No.7-Arjan Singh and predecessor-in-
interest of defendants No.2 to 5, namely, Puran Singh vide Collusive
Consent Decree dated 13.03.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 547 of 1986. It
was discovered that pursuant to the Consent Decree, Mutation No. 1283
dated 21.06.1993 has also been sanctioned in a secret manner in collusion
with revenue authorities. It is only in October 2008, when defendants No.
1 to 5 had threatened to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit property, the
plaintiffs came to know about the Decree dated 13.03.1987. Accordingly,
present suit was instantly filed on 10.2.2009.
3. Learned counsel submits that the suit property being
ancestral, Ram Kali was not competent to transfer the same by Collusive
Decree. As such, Collusive Decree does not confer any right or title of
defendant No.1 to 5. Plaintiffs had duly proved their case by leading
cogent evidence which has been ignored by learned Courts below. On the
other hand, defendants, except for the self-serving statement of Yash Pal
DW1 had led no evidence to prove their case. Plaintiffs had duly proved
the kareva marriage of Ram Kali with Arjan. It is repeatedly submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that if the property was not ancestral in
nature, then why would Ram Kali transfer the same to her brother-in-law.
As such, plaintiffs are rightful owners of the suit property. It is accordingly
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -5-
prayed that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from material
error and deserve to be set aside.
4. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the
appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case filed in detail. I
find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
5. First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out that
declaration in respect of the Decree dated 13.03.1987 and Mutation dated
21.06.1993 was sought by the plaintiffs vide present suit instituted on
10.02.2009. Clearly, suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.
6. It has further come on record that Decree dated 13.03.1987
was suffered between defendant No.1- Yash Pal, defendant No.7-Arjan
Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.2 to 5, namely, Puran
Singh and Ram Kali, which was a Consent Decree on the basis of
compromise. A Consent Decree can be assailed only on ground of fraud
and misrepresentation. Admittedly, plaintiffs in their plaint have made no
pleading of fraud and misrepresentation in respect of the Decree dated
13.03.1987. The only ground on which Decree dated 13.03.1987 had
been challenged by the plaintiffs is that Ram Kali is not competent to
execute the same. However, the said ground is not available to the
plaintiffs as a Consent Decree cannot be assailed on merits; and can only
be challenged on ground of fraud and misrepresentation; which had
admittedly not been pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Even
otherwise, the plaintiffs have not produced even an iota of evidence to
show that Decree dated 13.03.1987 was a result of collusion between
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -6-
Ram Kali and the other defendants. Competency of Ram Kali to transfer
the suit property already stood adjudicated upon and decided by the
Court which passed Decree dated 13.03.1987. The said issue cannot be
reopened and reassessed by the Trial Court in the present suit.
7. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the suit land was
ancestral in nature. However, plaintiffs have not led any evidence
whatsoever to prove the ancestral nature of the property. On the contrary,
the fact that Ram Kali was owner in possession of the suit property was
proved from voluminous revenue record in the form of Ex.P20 to Ex.P23,
which is Jamabandi for the year 1976-1977; Ex.P24 to Ex.P26 Jamabandi
for the year 1981-1982; Ex.P27 to Ex.P29 Jamabandi for the year 1986-
1987; Ex.P30 to Ex.P32 Jamabandi for the year 1991-1992. The plaintiffs
have not brought any evidence to prove that kareva marriage was
performed between Ram Kali with Arjan; or that the plaintiffs were born
out of the said wedlock. It has come on record that Ram Kali had inherited
the suit property from Surjan in an absolute manner. It has further come
on record that plaintiffs are children of Arjun and have no connection with
Surjan. Therefore, the property acquired by Ram Kali from Surjan was not
ancestral property. Thus, plaintiffs failed to prove that they had right over
the suit property; or that Ram Kali was not competent to dispose of the
suit property in any manner she thought fit.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute or
controvert the above said factual position.
RSA-2858-2023 (O&M) -7-
9. In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere in
the concurrent judgments and decrees, and findings of fact of the learned
Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed
on merits, as well as on grounds of delay.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
16.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
