Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajwant Singh Through His Lr vs Pritam Singh Through His Lr on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042394
115 2024:PHHC:042394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-15-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.03.2024
AJWANT SINGH THROUGH HIS LR ...... APPELLANTS
VS
PRITAM SINGH THROUGH HIS LR ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Harpeet Arora, Advocate for
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Arora, Advocate for respondent-caveator.
GURBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This regular second appeal is filed against the concurrent
findings of Courts below.
2. The parties are being addressed as per the original suit.
3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of appeal are that the
plainitff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the
suit land measuring 6 K 16 M as comprised in khasra No.10//18 situated in
the area of village Talwandi on the basis of exchange deed dated 10.03.1986
and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property. The case of plaintiff is that the defendant was owner of 5 kanals of
land as comprised in khasra nos. 8//24,32//16 in the area of Nihal Singh
Wala. Vide exchange deed dated 10.03.1986, both the parties exchanged
their respective properties and delivered the possession of the land given in
the exchange. The plaintiff irrigated the suit property with electric motor
connection M-1164 installed in the name of his son Jotinder Singh. The said
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042394
exchange deed has been partly reflected in the revenue record. On the basis
of the same defendant started disputing the title of the plaintiff.
4. Defendant contested the suit and filed their written statement
with preliminary objections that both the parties are heirs of Bakshish Singh.
The exchange deed is forged and fabricated document. The admissibility of
the exchange deed has also been challenged on the ground of non-
registration.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that
plaintiff is owner and is in possession of the suit property on the basis of
exchange deed dated 10.03.1986 and from the date of exchange, the parties
are in possession of their respective portions which were received by way of
exchange. The exchange deed was partly entered into the revenue record and
inadvertently, it was completely not reflected. The plaintiff has been
reflected to be owner of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land comprised in khasra no
10//18 whereas he had received 6 kanals 16 marlas of land in exchange.
There was no alteration in the exchange agreement Ex.P1. Khasra No 22//16
was wrongly written and correction thereof as 32//16 was made in the
presence of all the parties. The exchange deed is already acted upon so its
non-registration hardly makes any difference.
6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant.
7. The case of the plaintiff is based on exchange deed Ex.P-1. In
the jamabandis as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, mutation of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land
comprised in 10//18 was sanctioned in favour of the defendant and mutation
of 2 kanals 12 marlas land as comprised in Khasra No. 8//24 was sanctioned
in favour of the plaintiff. As per mutation No. 6261, but the said document is
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042394
not proved on the file. The plaintiff is shown to have 1/6th share in khasra
No.10//18, 6 kanals 16 marlas so the plaintiff could not give the entire land
in exchange. There is statement of PW-1 Malkiat Singh, Ex-Sarpanch who is
scribe and also attesting witness of exchange deed that parties are still in
possession of the land as they were in possession prior to the execution of
the exchange deed. Any oral exchange, which is not accompanied with the
delivery of possession is no exchange in the eyes of law. When exchange
deed is reduced into writing then said deed requires registration. The
exchange deed Ex.P-1 is an unregistered document so cannot be considered
as document whereby rights in the immovable property have been
transferred. Both the Courts below have rightly held that plaintiff has failed
to prove that he is owner and in possession of the suit property. Both the
Courts below have correctly given concurrent findings on facts. No question
of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
8. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the judgment
and decree passed in this case. This regular second appeal is without merit
and is dismissed, accordingly.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dispose of in view
of the above-said order.
(GURBIR SINGH)
13.03.2024 JUDGE
renu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
