R.S.A. No. 2805 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2805 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.2.2011 Amarjit Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Amar Singh .......Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Sant Singh and Bachan Singh were real brothers. Both of them had entered into an oral exchange in the year 1960, vide which Bachan Singh had exchanged his share in the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 1796 and 1895 with Sant Singh. Parties had also changed possession of their respective lands as per the exchange. Plaintiffs were the legal heirs of deceased Sant Singh whereas the defendant was the son of Bachan Singh. On 14.9.1986, terms of the oral exchange which had taken place in the year 1960 were reduced into writing between Bachan Singh and plaintiffs. Bachan Singh had retained the house site which measures about four biswas and had sold the same to the R.S.A. No. 2805 of 2010 (O&M) 2 plaintiffs for a sum of ` 5,000/- vide sale deed dated 2.3.1993. The plaintiffs had become owners in possession of the whole share of Bachan Singh in view of exchange deed dated 14.9.1986 and sale deed dated 2.3.1993. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of exchange deed dated 14.9.1986. It was averred that the said deed had no legal value as it was an unregistered document. Defendant was in possession of the suit land after the death of his father. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property, described in the head note of the plaint ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5-A. Whether defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession? OPD. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2009 the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated R.S.A. No. 2805 of 2010 (O&M) 3 30.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land had come to them in terms of the oral exchange entered between Sant Singh and Bachan Singh in the year 1960. The terms of the oral exchange were reduced into righting vide exchange deed dated 14.9.1986. A perusal of the exchange deed (Annexure P-1) reveals that the terms and conditions of the deed are in the present form. The said deed cannot be said to be a memorandum of oral exchange which had taken place in the year 1960. Rather a perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that the exchange was to be effective from the date of execution of the exchange deed. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under :- “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered- No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)], to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered : [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be R.S.A. No. 2805 of 2010 (O&M) 4 registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), [xxx] or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument.]” Thus, as per the above provision the exchange deed was required to be registered. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the exchange deed relied upon by the plaintiffs dated 14.9.1986 did not advance the case of the plaintiffs as it was an unregistered document. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 28, 2011 Anand