RSA No. 1628 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 1628 of 2003 Date of decision: 14.02.2008 Jasvinder Kaur ...Appellant Versus Jagsir Singh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. R S Aulakh, Advocate for the respondents -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) This is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, which has been affirmed by the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Feozepur, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff, has been decreed. Plaintiff-Kartar Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals, comprised in Khewat No. 452, Khatoni no. 654 and Khasra no. 38M/1/1/2, situated in the revenue estate of Village Mansurdeva and further entries in the jamabandi from 1974-75 upto date showing the defendant in possession be declared as illegal and against the law and the same be corrected in favour of the RSA No. 1628 of 2003 2 plaintiff. Precisely, facts of the case are that originally one Ujaggar Singh, owner of the suit land, had exchanged the land with Kartar Singh and to that effect a mutation No. 3139 was sanctioned vide order dated 23.11.1964. Entries with regard to exchange of said land, were also incorporated in the revenue record prepared up to year 1974-75. It is pleaded that defendant-Mangtu, got this land entered in his favour and the respondents/plaintiffs came to know about the said entry when Defendant- Mangtu tried to dispossess Plaintiff-Kartar Singh from the land in dispute. Hence, the present suit was filed. Both the Courts below, after going through the entire evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that Kartar Singh was the owner of the suit property as he got the same in exchange from Ujaggar Singh. Entries in the jamabandi upto 1974-75 clearly show that he was owner in possession of the suit land. It appears that thereafter, entry was wrongly made due to some mistake in the revenue record in favour of the appellant/defendant. As such, the defendant has no right or title over the suit property. Thus, the same be corrected. Appellant has failed to proved by any cogent evidence that as to how defendant-Mangtu or his successor-in- interest became owner in possession of the suit property and on what basis revenue record was changed in their favour. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the substantial question of law for consideration in the instant appeal, is, that the mutation does not confer any right over the suit property. RSA No. 1628 of 2003 3 It is of course true that the mutation does not confer any right. In the present case, plaintiff-Kartar Singh was actual owner of the suit property, as he got the same in exchange from one Ujaggar Singh. To that effect, mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. As such, no title is conferred by way of mutation but by way of exchange of his land with Ujaggar Singh. There is no ground to take a view different than the one, which has been taken by both the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are either perverse or based on no evidence. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law having been arisen for consideration in the instant appeal, it is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 14, 2008 mohan