R.S.A No. 1906 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1906 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 17, 2010 Nachhattar Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Malkiat Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.S.Pandher, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering over his possession of the land in dispute (measuring 7 marla). The plea taken by the respondents was that in fact the said land of 7 marla was exchanged by the appellant with his brother and thereafter his brother had sold the same to them. In replication, the appellant admitted the exchange deed but alleged that the said exchange related to some other R.S.A No. 1906 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: property. In evidence, however, the appellant completely denied having entered into any exchange with his brother. The trial Court noticing that the exchange deed was not entered in the revenue record held that the exchange was not proved and consequently decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court, however, noticed the variance in the stand of the appellant and also found that actually the property mentioned in the document of exchange as well as the plaint was the same but by mentioning the names of previous owners towards the North and South, the appellant had tried to conceal the true identity of the property and give it the colour of a different property. The lower appellate Court further found that the document of exchange recorded that the exchange had taken place between the brothers at an earlier point of time and was just being given shape in writing. Consequently, the lower appellate Court held that the document of exchange was not a exchange deed but was a memo of exchange. Having found on fact that the exchange between the appellant and his brother was established, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the appellate Court below has ignored material evidence ? The appellate Court below has wrongly ignored the evidence that the plaintiff has produced the copies of jamabandi and khasra girdawari to show his ownership and possession. ii) Whether the appellate Court below has drawn wrong inferences by applying law erroneously ? The appellate Court below has ignored that as the respondent/defendant No.1 had pleaded exchange of the R.S.A No. 1906 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: land with the plaintiff the onus shifts on him to show that the exchange deed was validly executed. It has also been ignored that the exchange deed dated 29.6.2004 has not been got entered in any revenue record or before any authority from where it could be deduced that the same has been acted upon. iii) Whether the appellate Court below has ignored that agreement to sell executed by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 with respondent/defendant No.3 and another agreement for sale in favour of respondent/defendant No.2 for the disputed land are merely paper transactions made in order to grab the property of the appellant/plaintiff. These documents are unregistered documents and are not registered sale deed but just agreement to sell only. Thus, the settled law that such types of documents/paper transactions cannot confer any right over any person regarding the disputed property has also been ignored. iv) Whether the appellate Court below has ignored the material evidence ? The appellate Court has ignored that the respondent/defendant No.1/DW has admitted that he has sold his entire land in the village and is living in the village Tarkhan Wala for the last seven years.” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. In view of the finding of the lower appellate Court, extracted above, counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me R.S.A No. 1906 of 2010 (O&M) ::4:: that the findings are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 17, 2010. JUDGE `kk'