HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J- Appellant Plaintiff Respondents Defendants Second Appeal No.94 of 2007 Lakhan Lal, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Ramta Sahu, R/o Village Birkona, Tahsil & District - Bilaspur (C.G.) versus 1. Smt. Narbadiya Bai, aged 65 years, Wd/o Rameshwar Lal, 2. Murari Lal, aged about 49 years, S/o Rameshwar Lal, 3. Girdhari Lal, aged about 44 years, S/o Rameshwar Lal, 4. Sunil, aged about 39 years, S/o Rameshwar Lal, 5. Vinod, aged about 34 years, S/o Rameshwar Lal, 6. Dr. Ram Khilavan, aged 59 years, S/o Surat Ram Sahu (All R/o Village Birkona, Tahsil & District Bitaspur (C.G.)) 7. Smt. Dhela Bai, aged about 70 years, W/o Dhan Sai, 8. Smt. Savitri Bai, aged about 45 years, W/o Not known (Both R/o Village Sarkho, Tahsil - Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)) 9. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Second^A&eeal under Section 100 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure Present: Shri H.V.Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri P.R.Patankar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.9. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 27th day of August, 2008) Heard on admission. \^ —2— (2) The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2006 passed by the 6 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.8- A/2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21-07-2004 passed by the 9th Civil Judge Class-11, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.131-A/2002, whereby the appellant/plaintiff's suit was dismissed. (3) Brief facts as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff are that he is the owner of the suit land, i.e., Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre land situated in Village Birkona. He entered into an oral agreement with one Rameshwar (the deceased respondent/defendant) for purchasing land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre for a consideration of Rs.9,000/- and paid Rs.6,000/- as an advance. The appellant/plaintiff was put in possession of land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre. Since the appellant/plaintiff could not pay the remaining consideration of Rs.3,000/- within time, it was orally agreed between the parties that in lieu of non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- the appellant/plaintiff would put Rameshwar in possession of the Suit land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre and allow him to conduct agricultural operations on the said land for a period of six years. A deed of exchange was executed between the parties wherein it was shown that in exchange for the suit land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre the appellant/plaintiff agreed to receive from Rameshwar the land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre. In this manner, Rameshwar came in possesslon of the suit land Khasra N6.605 area 0.84 acre. In the year 1986, when the appellant/plaintiff learnt that Rameshwar had got his name mutated over —^> the suit land, he asked Rameshwar to deliver possession. On refusal, Civil Suit No.131-A/2002 was instituted claiming the following relief: "(12) 'cTT^t PtMf^fRsld 3TT^rf^T :STT??n' t - - (3T) ^ ^frf^T f^TT ^r f^) ^f^T d6||c;dlT1l^l mici^^i t ^r? "c^r ^ -c^- ^RT^pft ^?r ^STT ^ fcKsll^ll TPTT ^TT ^T^TT ci|^-4^p| ^ q^TT yR|c||cf|^|u| ^ ^T^f ^T f^oTPTT ^TT^ I (^r) ^T^r 20 f$raTr 12 ^TOW^fO ^ 3t^TF?[ ^TK f^T ^f ^^TT HTT?T "gt^ ?I^ 3ra':^ff'?T cTpT 'qT ^^||-T| 'c^T f^Tsr -cf^- jcb^iTTl f^rpft "^r i (^T) ^TK ^ Rdl^ll ^TTcT | (^) ^S^T ^T^ff^T ^Tt ^lt^ld^ ^f^T '^TR^' f^TPft ^ I" (4) Rameshwar, the defendant No.1 died during the pendency ofthe suit and his legal representatives, i.e., respondents No.1 to 5 herein were substituted. The respondents/defendants denied that the apperiant/plaintiff had agreed to purchase land Khasra No.433area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre from Rameshwar. It was pleaded that in the year 1978 the appellanVplaintiff and Rameshwar agreed to exchange the land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre for the suit land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre and had executed a deed of exchange of the abovementioned lands with mutual consent. Rameshwar thus came in possession of the suit land and his name was also mutated thereon in the revenue records. It was not disputedthat in view of the^deed of exchange the appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area ^ ® 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre and had also constructed a house thereon. (5) Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to prove that he had agreed to purchase land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre for a consideration of Rs.9,000/- and had paid Rs.6,000/- to Rameshwar. Both the Courts below have also recorded a finding that the appellant/plaintiff had also failed to prove that the deed of exchange was got written as a security for the amount of Rs.3,000/-, which was due. Lakhan Lal, P.W.-4 had admitted in paragraph 5 that deed of exchange was written with the consent of the parties. The execution of the deed of exchange between the parties was also not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in this appeal. It was also not in dispute that Rameshwar had got his name mutated over the suit land, i.e., Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre. In this manner, both the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary recorded a concurrent finding that pursuant to a deed of exchange mutually agreed to between the parties there was an exchange of land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre for land Khasra No.433 area 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total area 0.23 acre between the parties. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents had perfected their title over the land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre by adverse possession is not under challenge in this appeal. Both the Courts below were thus justified in declining to grant the relief claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. The fact that the deed of exchange was not a registered document would not have made any difference because the appellant/plaintiff having accepted land Khasra No.433 area -^- ^l 0.13 acre and land Khasra No.434/6 area 0.10 acre, total areaO.23 acre belonging to Rameshwar in exchange for the suit land, i.e., land Khasra No.605 area 0.84 acre was, on the pleadings set up by him, not entitled to possession of the suit land or the declaration sought by him. In my considered opinion, no question of law arises for determination of this appeal. (6) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal