RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:20.09.2010 Ram Kumar .... appellant Versus Shyam Sunder & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.11123-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for possession of the suit land, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, appellant is claiming himself as owner of the suit property on the ground that his father had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 18.05.1970 which came to his share on the basis of an order dated 23.06.1997 passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, in partition proceedings. However, the defendants- RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) 2 respondents resisted the suit on the ground that appellant was not owner in possession of the property in dispute because respondents had earlier exchanged the property in dispute with one Thakaria on the basis of an order dated 27.07.1965 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Land Holdings, Punjab, according to which the suit land was got exchanged by Thakaria and since aforesaid Thakaria was not owner of the suit land he could not sell the same in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 18.05.1970. It was also stated that appellant was not in possession of the suit land and had no concern with the property in dispute. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the courts below concluded that plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove his ownership over the property in dispute and the respondents had established that Thakaria from whom the plaintiff alleged to have purchased the property in dispute was not the owner of the aforesaid property after passing of the order dated 27.07.1965(Ex.D-1). Courts below also found that the appellant was not able to show that earlier he was in possession of the suit property and the respondents had taken forcible possession of the property in dispute from him during the pendency of the previous suit between the parties. Resultantly, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by both the courts below. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid findings of the courts below submitting that appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 18.05.1970 and was entitled to the possession of the land and the findings of the courts below are the result of misreading of evidence and being perverse, are liable to be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) 3 1. Whether the father of plaintiff who had purchased this land vide registered sale deed on 18.05.1970 is a bona fide purchaser and entitle for possession of the land? 2. Whether in partition proceeding the land has been allotted to the appellant and the order has become final can be ignored on the ground that exchange had taken place prior to sale deed? 3. Whether the defendant who had raised the plea of exchange had failed to connect the land of exchange with the disputed land? 4. Whether not granting the permission to file a fresh suit to the applicant is illegal? 5. Whether there is a misreading of the evidence on record? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement and decrees of the courts below. Plaintiff is claiming himself as owner of the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 18.05.1970 vide which his father had purchased the suit land. However, the order dated 27.07.1965 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Land Holdings, Punjab,shows that the suit land was got exchanged by Thakaria, the original owner, with one Pat Ram and thus Thakaria did not remain as owner of the suit land and could not sell the same vide sale deed dated 18.05.1970 and therefore the appellant could not be given any right of the suit property on the basis of partition proceedings dated 23.06.1997 and the same will not bind the respondents. Admittedly, the order dated 27.07.1965, vide which the suit land was exchanged by Thakaria in favour of Pat Ram has become final. The plea of appellant of bona fide purchaser has not been taken by the appellant, in his pleadings. The prayer of the appellant for amendment of the written statement, at the appellate stage, to RSA No.3622 of 2009(O & M) 4 take up the aforesaid plea of bona fide purchaser was declined. The aforesaid order was not challenged by the appellant. Even otherwise, counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the order declining the aforesaid prayer for amendment. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 20.09.2010 neenu