-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2398 of 2009. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2398 of 2009. Harbans Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Gurbax Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Harbans Singh (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit filed against his (plaintiff's) father Hari Singh ( since deceased and represented by his legal representatives i.e sons Gurbax Singh, Gura Singh and Ram Singh – -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2398 of 2009. respondents Nos.1 to 3 in this appeal) for declaration that agreement of exchange dated 30.5.19990 was null and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed. As per facts of the case, plaintiff was owner of land measuring 13 Kanals 14 Marlas and Hari Singh (father of defendants-respondents Gurbax Singh, Gura Singh and Ram Singh and plaintiff-appellant Harbans Singh) was owner of land to the extent of 16 Kanals 10 Marlas. Both plaintiff-appellant Harbans Singh and Hari Singh exchanged the said lands as per the exchange deed dated 30.5.1990. Land measuring 13 Kanals 14 Marlas was given to Hari Singh in lieu of land measuring 16 Kanals 10 Marlas. The allegation of the plaintiff-appellant was that Hari Singh, his father, did not hand over possession of the land measuring 16 Kanals 10 Marlas to him (plaintiff) as per the agreement of exchange dated 30.5.19990. However, on the other hand, the case of the defendants-respondents was that mutation in respect of the agreement of exchange had also been sanctioned. It was denied if Hari Singh did not deliver possession of the land to the plaintiff-appellant or the agreement dated 30.5.1990 became null and vlid. Both the parties were stated to be in possession of the lands exchanged between them. Hari Singh had executed a Will dated 12.3.1986 in favour of defendants-respondents Gurbax Singh, Gura Singh and Ram Singh, who are brothers of plaintiff-appellant Harbans Singh -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2398 of 2009. and, therefore, presently defendants-respondents Gurbax Singh, Gura Singh and Ram Singh are now in possession of the land exchanged by their father Hari Singh with their brother Harbans Singh as per the agreement of exchange dated 30.5.1990. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The execution of exchange deed dated 30.5.1990 is admitted by both the parties. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff-appellant Harbans Singh was owner of the disputed land i.e 13 Kanals 14 Marlas and Hari Singh, predecessor-in-interest of Gurbax Singh, Gura Singh and Ram Singh (respondents-defendants) and Hari Singh (plaintiff-appellant) was owner of land measuring 16 Kanals 10 Marlas and they exchanged the same. As per the Jamabandi in respect of the land in dispute, it was the ownership of Harbans Singh (plaintiff-appellant) and thereafter it was given to Hari Singh in exchange, who was in possession of the same after exchange. Mutation had also been entered in column No.5 of the Jamabandies. The plaintiff had placed on record Jamabandi (Exhibit -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 2398 of 2009. P.2) in respect of land situated at Village Duggalwala wherein his (plaintiff's) father Hari Singh (since deceased) had been shown to be co-sharer and he (plaintiff) was also shown to be in possession of the suit land. It is significant to note that the plaintiff-appellant did not place on record any further Jamabandi in respect of the said land in order to show that possession had not been delivered to the plaintiff. As noticed above, the defendants admitted, in categorical terms, that possession of the land in dispute had been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of exchange. Under the circumstances, it was imperative for the plaintiff to prove that possession of exchanged land had not been delivered to him by Hari Singh. Once the plaintiff failed to do so, no fault can be found with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. In fact, no cause of action was left with the plaintiff to challenge the exchange deed dated 30.5.1990, which had been acted upon by both the parties. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak