Regular Second Appeal No. 2450 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2450 of 2009 Date of Order: 06.07.2009 Sukh Ram and others ....Appellants Versus Bimla Devi and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. V.S.Bhardwaj,Advocate for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 04.04.2008 and 21.04.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari and the District Judge, Rewari, decreeing the suit filed by respondents and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The plaintiff-respondents, who are the widow and daughters of Deep Chand, filed a suit for possession by alleging that Deep Chand, was allotted the suit property by virtue of a registered sale/allotment deed dated 22.12.1977, executed by Gram Panchayat Saban, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. Deep Chand raised construction upon the plot in the shape of a kacha chapper. After his death, however, the appellants occupied the property in March, 2002, by demolishing the chapper and raising a pucca construction in the shape of two rooms and a tin-shed. The defendant-appellants filed a written statement raising objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit. On merits it was averred that after the allotment, Deep Chand and his brother appellant no.1 exchanged plot No.19 with plot No.24 by way of an oral exchange. The appellants Regular Second Appeal No. 2450 of 2009 -2- thereafter constructed two rooms, a boundary wall and one tin-shed and are residing in this property. It was further asserted that as Deep Chand and appellant no.1 are real brothers, the exhange was not reduced into writing. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues and thereafter called upon the parties to lead evidence:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owned in possession of the suit property?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs has been filed within limitation?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of proper court fee stamp?OPD 7. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed , the trial court held that Deep Chand was owner of the suit property and the appellants were in unauthorised occupation as they had failed to establish the oral exchange. The trial court , therefore, decreed the suit by directing the appellants to hand over possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the appellants filed an appeal. The District Judge, Rewari, affirmed the findings recorded by Regular Second Appeal No. 2450 of 2009 -3- the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that as an oral exchange is not barred the courts below committed an error in rejecting the evidence that establishes the oral exchange. It is further submitted that the absence of a written document of exchange, could not have been pressed into service by the courts below to reject the plea of oral exchange. As the appellants have raised pucca construction and are residing in the suit property, the appeal be accepted and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below be set aside. I have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgments and find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The respondents filed a suit for possession alleging that the suit land was allotted by the Gram Panchayat to Deep Chand. The appellants have, however, forcibly occupied the plot after his demise. The appellants allege that the suit property namely Plot No.19 was exchanged by Deep Chand with Plot No.24 by way of an oral exchange. In essence, the appellants admit that Deep Chand was owner of the suit property but allege that they are owners by way of an oral exchange. The onus to establish the oral exchange lay upon the appellants. However, as held by the courts below the appellants have failed to establish, their plea of oral exchange. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error of law. As the findings with respect to ownership are pure findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. July 07, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE