Sukhpal Singh & Anr vs Kulwant Singh & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 804 P&H

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

216                                      RSA-666-2013 (O & M)
                                         Date of Decision: January 16, 2023

SUKHPAL SINGH & ANR                                           .....APPELLANTS


                                      VERSUS


KULWANT SINGH & ORS                                            ....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:    Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

            Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for
            Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.16.
                      ****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J (ORAL)

The appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated

21.08.2012 whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the

Civil Judge on 07.05.2010 has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit land had

been duly exchanged by the appellants in terms of Ex.P-2 and, therefore, his

suit ought to have been decreed. The factum of the exchange deed has been

supported by defendant No.15 in his written statement but he could not be

examined as he expired before the evidence could be completed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellants

could not prove the factum of the exchange and, therefore, the suit had been

rightly dismissed.

Heard.

The appellants had filed a suit for joint possession of 2/3rd share of

land measuring 05 kanals 18 marlas bearing khasra No.1476 (4-16), 1469 min

(1-2) Khewat khatoni No.1053/3363 as entered in the jamabandi for the year

1 of 2

RSA-666-2013 (O & M) -2-

1980-81 and khewat khatoni No.858/2544-45 as entered in the jamabandi

1995-96 situated in Sultanwind Sub Urban, Tehsil and District Amritsar, with

consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 13

from selling, mortgaging or transferring and from raising construction in any

manner on the land in dispute.

The entire case of the appellants was based on the exchange deed

over the suit land. The exchange deed Ex.P-2 is stated to have been recorded

on 02.02.1983. The exchange had not been reported to the revenue authorities

and there is nothing in the revenue record to indicate that the exchange had

indeed taken place. The onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the factum of

exchange. During the pendency of the suit, the suit property had been sold to

defendant No.16 vide sale deed Ex.D1 dated 13.09.2004. PW-2 had admitted in

his cross-examination that the construction had indeed been completed. The

suit had been filed after more than 18 years of the alleged execution of the

exchange deed Ex.P-2. Even if the exchange had indeed taken place, the

appellants were required to report to the revenue authorities promptly and got

the same recorded in the revenue record. The appellants had not sought any

correction in the revenue record with regard to the ownership and possession of

the suit land.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal which stands

dismissed.

                                        (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
                                                 JUDGE
January 16, 2023
A.Kaundal

      Whether speaking/ reasoned        :      Yes/No
      Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                      2 of 2