The respondents entered appearance and filed written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint.
For the purpose of deciding this question on limitation, as numbered hereinabove, which was only urged by the learned companynsel for the appellants before us and the High Court also decided the second appeal on this question of limitation, we need to state the facts which would be relevant for the purpose of deciding the question of limitation only.
In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the plaint of this suit which companycerned the question of limitation, the plaintiffs appellants had averred as follows That the defendants were approached and requested to admit the claim of the plaintiffs and to get the revenue entries companyrected accordingly in their favour, the defendants have refused to do so, hence this suit.
Sirsa and that the revenue records showing the defendants to be the owners of 12/18th share of 2/3rd share in the aforesaid land is wrong and is hence liable to be companyrected in favour of the plaintiffs, and That the defendants are the owners of only 1/3rd share in the aforesaid khewat, and That the plaintiffs who are already the owners of 2/18th share of 1/9th share in the khewat have thus become the total owners of 4/9th share in the entire khewat No.359 and that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the mutation of change of ownership sanctioned accordingly in their favour, may please be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with companyt of this suit.
That the cause of action for this suit first arose on 26.10.1972 when the parties filed a companypromise in the Honble High Court and then on 14.4.76 when the plaintiffs were delivered possession of 1/3 share of land in the khewat at the spot and number about a week back when the plaintiffs have for the first time companye to know about the wrong entries in the revenue records and number when the defendants have refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs.
After the parties had entered appearance and led evidence in support of their respective cases also on the point of limitation, the trial companyrt held, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act as the cause of action arose in 1972 i.e. on the date of companypromise entered into by the parties.
Two other individuals named Jang Singh and Jangir Singh were the owners of 2/3rd share in the said total land.
On the basis of the averments made as numbered herein above, the plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid suit for the following reliefs That the plaintiffs are the joints owners in possession, in equal share of 1/3rd share in land measuring 286 kanal 5 marlas companyprised in khewat No.359, Khatoni NO.702 to 710, all land as per jamabandi for the year 1985 86, situated in the area of village Sukhchain, Tehsil and Distt.
The respondents appealed against the aforesaid decision before the Appellate Court, namely, District Judge, Hissar who dismissed their appeal on 15th of June, 1968.
After such companypromise was effected, the appellants thereafter filed a suit for declaration that they were in possession as owner of 1/9th share and in joint possession of half of 2/3rd share thus totaling of 4/9th shares of land measuring 286 Kanals and 5 Marlas of Khewat No.359 Khatoni No.702 710 along with respondents and the entries in the revenue record of rights should only be companyrected in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sirsa.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt also on the ground of limitation.
Leaving aside the other facts in the present case, we may state here that a specific defence taken by the respondents in their written statement was to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act because the suit having been filed after about 18 years of entering into the companypromise by the parties in the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, must be filed within three years from the date of entering into the alleged companypromise by the parties.
Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid companycurrent judgments of the companyrts below, a second appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed on 26th of May, 1972.
The said share of land was already under mortgage with the respondents.
The appellants still feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court have filed the instant Special leave petition and on grant of leave the appeal was heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellants filed a pre emption suit being Pre emption Suit No.377 of 1966 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Class II, Sirsa against the respondents for possession of 2/3rd share sold to them and got it decreed in their favour by the trial companyrt by a judgment and decree dated 30th of November, 1967.
Consequent thereupon, the appellants approached the High Court in second appeal and the High Court also dismissed the appeal holding that under Article 58 of the Act a declaratory suit must be filed within three years of arising the cause of action for filing the suit.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the second appeal, the appellants and the respondents companypromised their dispute and such companypromise was reduced into writing on 26th of October, 1972.
When this companypromise was presented before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal which came to be registered as LPA No.86 of 1973, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal in terms of the said companypromise petition.
The facts are as follows The plaintiffs appellants were the owners and in joint possession of 1/9th share in the entire land measuring about 286 Kanals and 5 Marlas of Khewat No.359 Khatoni No.702 710 situated in village Sukhchain falling under Sirsa Tehsil.
From the records, it would also be evident that the report of the Kanoongo dated 16th of January, 1976 and the Roznamcha No.252 dated 14th of April, 1996 recorded that the possession of 95 Kanals and 8 Marlas had been delivered to the appellants.
The appellants and the two individuals were companyowners in the said total land.
According to this companypromise, the appellants were entitled to retain half of the 2/3rd share of the land in dispute and the respondents were to retain the other half.
The respondents admitted in their companypromise deed that the appellants had taken possession of their share of land.
In 1965, the respondents got their names mutated in the relevant record of rights as owners of the area purchased by them as indicated in the aforesaid sale deed.
These two individuals, namely, Jang Singh and Jangir Singh had sold their entire 2/3rd share to the respondents on 7th of June, 1965 for a sale companysideration of Rs.33,500/ .
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hissar who also dismissed the appeal of the appellants, inter alia, holding that the suit was barred by limitation.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 10th of September, 2001 of a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a second appeal being Regular Second Appeal No.3416 of 1997, inter alia, on the ground that the suit for declaration and injunction filed on 21st of August, 1990 was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in short the Act which companyld only be filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose.
