SHOKEEN vs HARU RAM AND OTHERS

SARITA RANI 2026.07.15 17:16 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RSA No.3728 of 2023 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:095681 through registered sale deeds decades earlier; and that the suit instuted in the year 2012 was hopelessly barred by limitaon. 4. The learned trial Court, aer appreciang the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that although Peeru had inially applied for allotment of surplus land, the record revealed that he failed to pursue the proceedings and did not appear before the competent authority, when called upon to complete the allotment proceedings. The trial Court further held that neither during the lifeme of Peeru nor thereaer during the lifeme of his son Khacheru were any proceedings iniated seeking enforcement of the alleged right. It was also found that the plainff alone had instuted the suit despite the existence of several other legal heirs of Khacheru, rendering the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary pares. The claim relang to restoraon of possession was also rejected in view of the undisputed fact that possession had been delivered to the landowner pursuant to revenue proceedings in the year 1972 and that the