RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.11.2009 Jaggar Singh ....Appellant Versus Ram Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina,J.(Oral) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was dismissed by the Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.) Phul, vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2002. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Addl.District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 16.07.2004. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “Briefly stated, Jaggar Singh has filed suit against Ram Chand and others seeking declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 28 kanals 6 marlas detailed in the title of the plaint and defendants have no concern with the RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. same and entry in jamabandi and mutation no.13398 dated 30.4.98 and 13207 dated 22.7.95 are illegal against the facts liable to be corrected on theaverments that defendants no.7 and 8 are minors and are being sued through their mother Angrej Kaur who has no adverse interest against the minors and separate application for the said purpose is being moved. The plaintiff is owner of land measuring 28 kanals 6 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98, entry in jamabandi and mutation no.13398 and 13207 are against law and facts. The land measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas bearing khasra numbers 2812(3-8), 2813(2-15), 2815(4-16) was purchased by the plaintiff and Ram Chand defendant no.1 in equal shares from Vir Singh, Balbir Singh, Balbiro children of Sadhu Singh through sale deed No.4063 dated 17.2.1982 for Rs.24,000/- and entry was correctly made in the jamabandi for the year 1992-93. They were also owner in equal share of land measuring 17 kanals 7 marlas bearing Nos.2366(10-11), 2814 (6-16) and its entry in jamabandi for the year 1992-93 is also correct. Defendant No.1 made oral exchange and given the land to him and plaintiff had given some other land to Ram Chand, so he is owner on the basis of oral exchange. The plaintiff and defendant had never sold exchanged any other part of the suit land, but they without any right got mutation no.13207 and 13398 sanctioned in their favour with the connivance of the authorities of which he came to know RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. recently and they were requested to get the same corrected but refused, hence the present suit. 3. On notice, the defendants no.1 to 4 have filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. 4. Defendants no.5 to 8 filed written statement taking legal objections that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and suit is not maintainable in the present form, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the suit is vague and it does not disclose from which date, year or month the alleged oral exchange was made and what numbers were given in exchange, rather the suit has been filed to harass them. That plaintiff filed the suit by concealing the true facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that defendant nos.7 and 8 are minors. It is further submitted that earlier plaintiff and defendant no.1 had ½ share each in the suit land but defendant no.1 out of the land measuring 40 kanals 1 marla with its ½ share measuring 20 kanals bearing no.2367(11-15), 2366(10-11), 2814(6-16), 2812(3-8), 2813(2-15), 2815(4-16) had given to defendants no.2 to 8 in family exchange and had taken 15 kanals i.e. 1/6 share of land measuring 90 kanals bearing khasra numbers 314(12-15), 315(18-4), 316/1(11-16), 316/2(11-8), 317(16-0), 318(12-2-), 2439 (7-15). Since they are in continuing of the said land owner and in possession and rapat Rojnamcha was got entered at No.322 dated 24.4.1988 in the presence of the RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. plaintiff and was also signed by the defendants and the exchange was done with the consent of the plaintiff and mutation no.13398 dated 30.4.98 was correctly sanctioned. Besides that, the plaintiff sold land to Balwinder Singh and Iqbal Singh sons of Harbans Singh and Harsimranjit Singh s/o Sikander Singh bearing khasra no.2812(3-8), 2813(2-15), 2816(4-16) measuring 10 kanals 19 marlas through sale deed dated 8.5.95 and its mutation was sanctioned vide No.13207 dated 22.7.1995 and plaintiff has full knowledge of the same but he has not knowingly mentioned the same in the plaint. The other averments of the plaint were also contested and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land?OPP. 2. Whether mutation No.13398 and 13207 are illegal, null and void?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has concealed material facts, if so, its effect?OPD. RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. 8. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 28 kanals 6 marlas bearing Khata no.328/895, 339/984, Khasra no.2366 (10-11), 2814 (6-16), 2812 (3-8), 2813 (2-15), 2815 (4-16) as per jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and defendants had no right or share in the said land and mutation no. 13398 dated 30.4.98 and 13207 dated 22.7.95 were wrong and were liable to be corrected. Although defendants no.1 to 4 in their written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff and defendant no.5 while appearing in the witness box as DW1 deposed that she had arrived at a compromise regarding the suit land with the plaintiff yet the plaintiff was required to lead some evidence in support of his case. Plaintiff while appearing in the witness box as PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not remember the khasra numbers of the land. He did not remember the area of land given to him by Ram Chand(defendant no.1). He did not know khasra numbers which were given by Ram Chand in exchange to him. He did not know the exact date, year and month of the exchange between him and Ram Chand. The exchange between him and defendant no.1 was reduced in writing. He did not know if Ram Chand had effected any exchange of 20 kanals of land with defendants no.2 to 8 or that defendants no.2 to 8 RSA No.577 of 2005 (O&M) .6. had given 15 kanals of land in exchange of Ram Chand. As per Ex.PW2/A sale deed dated 17.2.1982 plaintiff and defendant no.1 had purchased 10 kanals 19 marlas bearing khata no.255/690 of Khasra No.2812 (3-8), 2813 (2-15) and 2815 (4-16) situated in village Maluka-I. However, plaintiff had failed to lead any documentary evidence to establish that he had become owner in possession of the suit land. As per Ex.D-1, an exchange of land had taken place between defendant no.1 and Balwinder Singh etc. Plaintiff had thus failed to prove the plea of exchange of land between him and defendant no.1 by leading any cogent evidence. The mutations challenged by the plaintiff have not been proved on record. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as plaintiff had failed to establish that he was owner in possession of the suit land. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 18th Nov.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge