RSA No. 2869 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2869 of 2009
Date of Decision: 6.8.2009
Kartar Singh ......Appellant
Versus
Surjit Singh .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
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: Shri H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for
mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to deliver the possession
of the suit property was dismissed.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, his close
relation, was handed over permissive possession of the suit property purely
on licence basis in the year 1999. Such licence has been revoked vide letter
dated 20.4.2001 and therefore, the plaintiff claimed mandatory injunction.
In written statement, the defendant alleged that the property
was in fact, exchanged and he is in possession of the property measuring 1
kanal 15 marlas vide exchange deed dated 9.7.1982. Mutation on the basis
of the said exchange was duly entered. Thereafter, the plaintiff has sold the
land to Satpal vide sale deed dated 15.3.1988, whereas defendant sold the
RSA No. 2869 of 2009 (2)
land measuring 5 marla in favour of Avtar Singh and 4 marlas in favour of
Mukhtiar Singh and mutations of such land have duly been sanctioned.
Both the Courts have found that the exchange deed dated
9.7.1982 is proved to be executed. Such exchange is proved on the basis of
testimony of Baldev Raj, deed writer, who has been examined as DW2 and
who has proved the exchange deed dated 9.7.1982 as Exhibit D.1. He has
deposed that both the parties were known to him personally. He further
deposed that Surjit Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Atma Singh, were present
at the time of execution of the exchange deed Exhibit D.1. Both the Courts
have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant is in
possession of the suit property in pursuance of the exchange deed.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material
irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to
any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
6.8.2009
ds