JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J . The defendant is the appellant and assailed the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.119 of 2000, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2000 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Una in Civil Suit No.129/91,RBT No.593/95/91. 2. The plaintiff/ respondent sought the relief of declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 0-2-63 Centair being part of khasra Nos. 2762 to 2765 as entered in Missal Hakiat for the year 1988-89, situate in Village Behdala, Tehsil and District Una. The further contention of the plaintiff was that the land of khasra No.1863 was jointly owned and possessed by him and his brother Mool Raj to the extent of 1/2 share each and the area of this khasra number as recorded was 1 kanal 17 marlas and out of this land the plaintiff gifted 19 marlas of land to the present appellant vide registered gift deed dated 26.11.1980. 3. He further contended that the area of khasra No.1863 is 3 kanals 6 marlas, however, it was recorded in the revenue record as 1 kanal 17 marlas. Later on the settlement authorities corrected the area of khasra No.1863 (old) 2762 to 2765 (new) and he was aggrieved by the entries in the name of the appellant whereby he is shown as owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the above land. The plaintiff further asserted that such entry in the name of defendant No.1 as owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share was wrong and incorrect. 4.The appellant/defendant contested the suit by raising preliminary objections of non-maintainability of the suit, locus standi, estoppel, limitation and on merits it was averred that the plaintiff had gifted his 1/2 share in khasra No.1863 and after the gift his 1/2 share in khasra No.1863 and after the gift he was left with no right or claim in the land in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was sought to be dismissed. 5.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 19.5.1994 had framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 0-2-63 Hects. i.e. part of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2.Whether defendant No.1 is owner of the land measuring 0-3-65 Hects. The suit of the plaintiff was sought to be dismissed. 5.On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 19.5.1994 had framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 0-2-63 Hects. i.e. part of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2.Whether defendant No.1 is owner of the land measuring 0-3-65 Hects. i.e. part of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 3.Whether defendant No.2 is owner of the land measuring 0-6-27 Hects. i.e. part of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 4.Whether defendant No.1 is owner in possession of half share of the suit land, as alleged OPD-1 5.Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? 6.Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to sue, as alleged? OPD-1 7.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from suing by his acts and conduct, as alleged? OPD-1 8. Whether defendant No.1 is entitled to special costs, if so, to what amount? OPD- 1 9. Relief. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the party dismissed the suit holding that since Pritam Singh, plaintiff had gifted his entire share in khasra No.1863 as such he has no subsisting right or claim in land bearing khasra No.1863. It was also held that the appellant/defendant was owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share in khasra No.1863 and consequently acquired the same status as one of the joint owner to the extent of 1/2 share in khasra No.2762 to 2765 which had been carved out from old khasra No.1863. 6.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal before learned lower Appellate Court which was allowed. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant/appellant has come in appeal before this Court. 7. This Court on 3.4.2002 was pleaded to admit the appeal on following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the plaintiff who had gifted his entire share of the land, can claim right and interest if later on the area of gifted land is increased during settlement?2.Whether the plaintiff not in possession of the suit land, can maintain a suit for declaration simpliciter?3. Whether the suit for declaration, beyond three years from the impugned mutation/entry, is not within limitation and is liable to be dismissed being a legal issue? 8.I have heard Shri N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Whether the suit for declaration, beyond three years from the impugned mutation/entry, is not within limitation and is liable to be dismissed being a legal issue? 8.I have heard Shri N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ishita Bhandari, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents and have also gone through the records of the case. Substantial question No.1 9. The question which requires to be determined here is regarding the interpretation of the gift deed, as to whether Pritam Singh gifted out of his 1/2 share of the property or he gifted only 19 marlas of land which in terms of the revenue record existing at that time worked out the 1/2 share. Shri N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that bare reading of the gift deed Ex.PW-1/A would show that what was transferred to his client was not 19 marlas but was 1/2 share of Pritam Singh which was co-owned with Mool Raj in equal shares. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon the revenue record Ex.P-2 Missal Haquiat for the year 1979-80 and also Ex.DX jamabandi for the year 1982-83. It was contended that revenue record existing and prevailing at that time would clearly show that the land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas was jointly owned and possessed by Pritam Singh alongwith Mool Raj and Pritam Singh had transferred his entire share to the appellant. 10.He has further averred that in fact the Will had been unsuccessfully challenged right uptil this court and was upheld vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1999 passed by this court in RSA No.290/93. Thus, according to him the increase in area which took place during the settlement would essentially ensue to his benefit because in case there had been less than area 19 marlas, in that event it was obvious that donor would not have compensated the donee. According to learned counsel for the appellant the learned lower Court has wrongly held that he had moved an application for correction of the revenue record as there is no such application available on record. According to learned counsel for the appellant the learned lower Court has wrongly held that he had moved an application for correction of the revenue record as there is no such application available on record. 11.At this stage, it would be relevant to make reference to gift deed Ex.PW-1/A which clearly makes mention of a gift of 19 marals being 1/2 share of the total land of the property measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas and the same in mentioned by area and not by share. Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Janesh Gupta, Advocate has brought to my notice Ex.PW­2/B wherein additional area has been calculated and thereafter referred to Ex.P-1 the Missal Haquiat for the year 1988-89 which reflects the additional area. According to learned senior counsel representing the respondents, the area of 19 marlas was in fact quantified and it was by caution that the reference has been made to half the total area of land of 1 kanal 17 marlas. 12.The learned senior counsel for the respondents thereafter placed reliance on the statement of defendant No.1 who had appeared as DW-1 and referred to the admission of the defendant when in cross-examination he has stated that at the time of execution of the gift deed the total area of land was 1 kanal 7 marlas and not 3 kanals and 6 marlas as worked out during consolidation. Therefore, according to him the admission was the best evidence. 13.I have given my deep and thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by both the parties, as noticed above, the area of khasra No.1863 in the year 1979 was reflected in the revenue records to be of 1 kanal 17 marlas only. Therefore, the intention of the donor seems to be plain and simple that he wanted to gift away only 19 marlas as mentioned in the Gift deed Ex.PW-1/A or else he would simply mentioned the share rather than the area in the gift deed. Therefore, the increase in area for any reason later on would definitely ensue for the benefit of the original owner i.e. donor and not the donee. Therefore, the increase in area for any reason later on would definitely ensue for the benefit of the original owner i.e. donor and not the donee. Apart from the above, it is noticed that during the course of cross-examination, it has been suggested that the plaintiff/respondent and his father knew at the time of gift that the total area of khasra No.1863 was much more which clearly proves that the plaintiff/respondent was well aware of the fact that the area reflected in the revenue record over khasra no.1863 was not 1 kanal 17 marlas and accordingly this mistake was got rectified during consolidation proceedings. It appears that because of this reason Pritam Singh deceased in fact had filed an application to get the actual area of khasra No.1863 verified and located at the spot. Had the intention of Pritam Singh been to gift away his entire 1/2 share, irrespective of its larger area to the one as reflected in the revenue record, he would not bothered for having got the land demarcated in order to determine its area and could have left the matter between the donee and the other co-owner Mool Raj. His moving the application in this behalf itself shows that he wanted to cull out the actual area of khasra No.1863 so that he could avail of the addition, if any. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Pritam Singh intentionally gifted only 19 marlas of land in favour of appellant Chaman Lal and not half share in khasra No.l863. Thus the donee cannot lay a claim to more than 19 marlas in khasra No.1863. The question No.1 is accordingly answered against the appellant. Substantial Question No.2 14.It is then argued on behalf of the appellant that the suit for declaration and injunction simpliciter was not maintainable. Without claiming the relief of possession, I find no merit in this question since the plaintiff/respondent would be admitted to be joint possession as co-sharers of the suit land being khasra Nos. 2762 to 2765 as he had more share in the land.In such circumstances, there was no necessity for claiming the relief of possession. Accordingly, this question is also answered against the appellant. 2762 to 2765 as he had more share in the land.In such circumstances, there was no necessity for claiming the relief of possession. Accordingly, this question is also answered against the appellant. Substantial Question No.3 15.The learned senior counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the suit was time barred as it was filed on 29.6.1991 whereas mutation of increased area was sanctioned on 28.5.1988 as per Ex.DX jamabandi for the year 1982-83. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly noticed that when the issues were framed by the learned trial Court, such objection of limitation was not pressed. However, since the parties were fully aware of the rival cases, the learned lower appellate Court had proceeded to determine this issue. In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent would deem to have been in joint possession as co-sharer of the suit land throughout. It is only for the first time in the year 1988-89 that cause of action accrued when the respondents’ names were deleted from the revenue record and the suit thereafter came to be filed on 29.6.1991 which is well within time. Therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by time. Accordingly, this question is also decided against the appellant. 16.In view of my aforesaid findings, I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court which is accordingly upheld and affirmed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.