RSA No. 4117 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4117 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Sadhu ........ Appellant Versus Prahlad and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. JORA SINGH, J. Sadhu-appellant preferred this appeal against Prahlad and others to impugn the judgment dated 4.6.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2010, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, in Civil Suit No. 519 of 2008, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed Civil Suit No. 519 of 2008, for permanent injunction against Prahlad and others on the allegation that appellant had purchased a Bara measuring 10 marlas comprised in Khweat No. 33/35 Khatoni No. 81, Khasra No. 116 and land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 31/31/35, Khatoni No. 78, Khasra No. 22/2 i.e. 28/38th share. Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 purchased by the appellant was RSA No. 4117 of 2011 (O&M) -2- exchanged with Bara of Maru father of respondent No.5-Bhira in the year 1979. In fact, the land comprised in Rectangle No. 30, Khasra No. 22/2 measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06, was bifurcated into two parts. One part is measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas bearing khasra No. 22/3 and the second part is measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas bearing khasra No. 22/2. Out of khasra No. 22/2 (3 kanals 4 marlas) appellant is the owner to the extent of 1 kanal 8 marlas but the property was joint and there was no partition. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Relief.” Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant had purchased land measuring 10 marlas comprised in Khweat No. 33/35 Khatoni No. 81, Khasra No. 116 and the same was exchanged with Bara measuring 10 marlas owned by Maru father of respondent No. 5. After exchange, appellant is the owner in possession of Bara measuring 10 marlas owned by Maru. Appellant is not owner in possession of Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116. There was no exchange deed in writing. Exchange was oral. No revenue record to show that Bara measuring 10 marlas owned by Maru is in possession of the appellant but there is oral evidence on the file but evidence on file was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. RSA No. 4117 of 2011 (O&M) -3- After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any force. As per pleadings of the parties, appellant had purchased 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 and the portion purchased was exchanged with Bara of 10 marlas owned by Maru, father of respondent No. 5 but in support of this contention no cogent and convincing evidence on file. Exchange was in the year 1979 but regarding exchange no evidence on the file. Length and breadth of the Bara and area was not mentioned. No document on the file that earlier appellant was in possession of Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 and possession of the said Bara was handed over to Maru. Again no evidence on the file that Bara measuring 10 marlas was owned by Maru and after exchange the said property is in possession of the appellant and Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 earlier owned by the appellant is now in possession of Maru. Evidence rather shows that property in dispute is lying vacant. There is no construction. Then owner is in possession of the property. As per jamabandi for the year 1975-76, Ex. P-3 on the file Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 is owned by Telu and Surta. Sale deed Ex. P-2 dated 28.9.1979, shows that plot measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116, was purchased by Sadhu-appellant from Telu and Surta. Ex. P-4 jamabandi for the year 2005-06, shows that appellant is co-owner in possession of 14/51th share out of total land measuring 5 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 49/42 Khatoni No. 81 and khasra No. 30/22/2, situated with in the revenue estate of Teora. Ex. P-5 is the copy of khara-girdawri RSA No. 4117 of 2011 (O&M) -4- regarding crop kharif 2006 to Rabi 2007. Baldev Singh and others are in joint possession, so, as per sale deed Ex. P-1 appellant had purchased 1 kanal 8 marlas comprised in khewat No. 31/31/35 min, khatoni No. 78, Rectangle No. 30 and khasra No. 22/2 (3-4) that means appellant is a co-sharer in khasra no. 22/2. As discussed earlier, allegation of the appellant is that he had exchanged Bara measuring 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 116 with a Bara measuring 10 marlas owned by Maru but length, breadth and area of the Bara was not mentioned. Appellant when appeared in Court then stated that he had paid ` 20,000/- to the respondents in connection with a murder case and in lieu of that amount they had given 10 marlas to him which is in his possession but in the plaint no allegation of the appellant that ` 20,000/- was given to the respondent in connection with a murder case and in lieu of payment, respondents had given 10 marlas to him. In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved. By filing suit for permanent injunction appellant intends to grab the property of Maru. Regarding delay of 26 days in filing the present appeal, no explanation. In case, delay is condoned even then no case of the appellant is made out. For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed. October 20, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE