Darshan Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Gurtej Singh and Another v. Bhupinder Singh and Others

IN T

Darshan Singh ( and Another Bhupinder Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA CM-3483-C-20

Thi filing the presen

For filing the presen

Ap CM-3484-C-20

Thi the present appe

For the present appe

Ap

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

(Since deceased) through LR

VERSUS h and Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appe -.-

ANNU, J. is is an application for condona nt appeal. r the reasons stated in the appl nt appeal is condoned. plication stands disposed of. is is an application for condona eal. r the reasons stated in the appli eal is condoned. plication stands disposed of.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-653-2021 (O&M) ate of Decision : 27.10.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU ellants. ation of delay of 1291 days in lication, delay of 1291 days in ation of delay of 159 days in fil ication, delay of 159 days in fil

- re-re-ling

1.

plaintiffs assail learned Civil Ju

11.02.2015, dis Bathinda, vide j and dismissed th Brief facts

2.

owners in posse No. 130/1/1 min Kal Jharani, Dis the defendants a decree for perm them from the su

3.

It w suit land, which exchange agreem the plaintiffs a comprised in Kh in Khasra No. 1 of the said agree owners, cultivat

4.

21.04.2003, a c

e present Regular Second Appea ling the concurrent findings of udge (Junior Division), Bathind missed the suit of the plaintiff judgment and decree dated 05.0 he appeal. e plaintiffs instituted a suit for d ession of land measuring 5 kana n (5–14), Khata No. 43/106, situ strict Bathinda, and that the ent as owners are wrong and liable t manent injunction restraining t uit land or alienating it in any m was the case of the plaintiffs that h they had sold to the defenda ment was entered into between t allegedly exchanged their land hasra No. 105/2/3 min (5–14) w 130/1/1 min (5–14). The plaintif ement of exchange, they had be ting it and enjoying its usufructs. e plaintiffs further pleaded that clerical error occurred in the o

al has been filed by the appellan f the Courts below, whereby a, vide judgment and decree da fs, and the learned District Jud

08.2016, affirmed the said findi eclaration to the effect that they als 14 marlas comprised in Kha uated in the revenue estate of vill tries in the revenue record show to be corrected. They also sough the defendants from dispossess anner. t they were originally owners of ants. However, soon thereafter, the parties on 21.04.2003, wher d measuring 5 kanals 14 mar with the defendants' land compri ffs claimed that since the execut een in possession of the suit land . t while executing the sale deed ffice of the scribe, as Khasra N

- nts– ated dge, ngs are asra lage wing ht a sing f the an eby rlas ised tion d as d on

130/1/1 min (5– 14), which was and his brothe allegedly agree execute an exch Consequently, t i.e., 21.04.2003, signed the docu residents of vill contended that p have been in co have remained i

5.

It w the erroneous re the suit land. Th forcible possess They, however, file the present s

6.

objections rega concealment of had executed a regarding land m (5–14), along agreement of ex

–14) was mistakenly written inst intended to be sold. Upon realiz er Harbans Singh (plaintiffs) d that instead of executing a hange agreement to correct the he exchange agreement was dra , at the Tehsil Complex, Bathind ment, and attesting witnesses, C lage Kal Jharani, also signed an possession was mutually exchan ontinuous possession of the exc in possession of the other. was further stated that the defen evenue entries, attempted to forc he plaintiffs alleged that on 7.06 sion but were prevented by the t , continued to threaten disposse suit on 8.06.2010. e defendants filed a written arding maintainability, limitati material facts. On merits, the de a registered sale deed No. 522 measuring 5 kanals 14 marlas co with possession. However, th xchange, asserting that the allege

tead of Khasra No. 105/2/3 min ing the mistake, late Darshan Sin approached the defendants, w new sale deed, both sides wo error and avoid double expen awn and executed on the same d da. As per the plaintiffs, both par Chuhar Singh and Gurbachan Sin nd thumb-marked the same. It w nged, and since then, the plaint changed land, while the defenda ndants, taking undue advantage cibly dispossess the plaintiffs fr

6.2010, the defendants tried to t timely intervention of the villag ession, compelling the plaintiffs n statement raising prelimin ion, locus standi, estoppel, efendants admitted that the plaint dated 21.04.2003 in their fav omprised in Khasra No. 130/1/1 m hey denied the execution of ed document dated 21.04.2003 w

- (5– ngh who ould ses. day, rties ngh, was tiffs ants e of rom take ers. s to nary tiffs vour min any

forged and fabr further stated th reflected in the Girdawari, whic mistake in Khas or agreed upon b they have remai also pleaded th subsequent entr the suit was hop

7.

Rep pleadings and de

8.

Fro the learned trial

¶1for

¶2inju

3.

4.

9.

In Singh Brar, Adv of exchange dat in support of th exchange was e

ricated with an ulterior motive to hat mutation of the sale was du e revenue records, including Ja ch recorded them as owners in sra number had occurred or that between the parties. The defend ined in exclusive possession of t hat the plaintiffs, despite havin ies, did not raise any objection pelessly barred by limitation. plication was filed by the p enying the assertions made in th om the pleadings of the parties, th Court: Whether the plaintiffs are e ? OPP Whether the plaintiffs are e unction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maint Relief. order to prove their case, the vocate, who identified the signat ted 21.04.2003. PW2 Harbans S e execution and contents of the entered into voluntarily on the

o grab the land sold to them. Th uly sanctioned in their favour amabandi for 2007–08 and Kha n possession. They denied that t any correction was ever discus dants asserted that since 21.04.20 the land as absolute owners. It w ng full knowledge of the sale for over eight years, and therefo plaintiffs reiterating their origi e written statement. he following issues were framed entitled to a declaration as pray entitled to a decree for perman tainable in the present form? OP plaintiffs examined PW1 Kulw tures and drafting of the agreem Singh, one of the plaintiffs, depo said agreement, reiterating that same day as the sale deed. PW

- hey asra any ssed 003, was fore, inal d by yed nent D want ment osed W3

Gurbachan Sing version and state had taken poss tendered docum

10.

On DW2 Mewa Sin and asserted tha

21.04.2003. Th registered sale d their ownership

11.

learned counsel documentary ev the plaintiffs h agreement of ex Kulwant Singh deed and identi unable to state w He was specific point 'A', and h used in the rest serious doubts document.

12.

Fur the alleged poss

gh, one of the attesting witnes ed that he was present at the tim session of their respective exc ments marked Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 in n the other hand, the defendants e ngh, both of whom denied execu at possession had been delivered hey produced documents Ex. deed and copies of Jamabandi a and possession over the suit land e learned trial Court, after heari l for the parties and upon a tho vidence, and oral testimonies, rec had failed to establish the exi xchange dated 21.04.2003. The C Brar, Advocate, deposed regardi ified his signatures thereon, yet when the document was actuall cally referred to a portion of the he admitted that the ink used at of the document. This variation about the authenticity and rther, PW2, Harbans Singh, one session of the land in question p

sses, also supported the plainti me of execution and that both par changed lands. The plaintiffs a support of their claim. examined DW1 Gurmeet Singh ution of any agreement of exchan d to them under the sale deed da DX1 to Ex. DX5, including and Khasra Girdawari, to estab d. ing the arguments advanced by orough appraisal of the pleadin corded its findings to the effect t istence or validity of the alle Court observed that although PW ing the preparation of the exchan t in his cross-examination, he w ly presented before him or draft e exchange deed, Ex. P1, marked t that portion differed from the in ink, as per the trial Court, rai contemporaneity of the alle of the plaintiffs, deposed regard pursuant to the exchange; howev

- iffs' rties also nge ated lish ngs, that ged W1, nge was fted. d at ink ised ged ding ver,

during cross-exa deed dated 21.04 sold to the defen witness to the al cross-examinati was executed an the said sale. H deed at that tim ever entered on

13.

On impression of M could be validly confronted with deed, but he d possession of th writing of exch the land in dispu

14.

concluded that necessitated the that the portion alleged exchang admitted during serious suspicio plaintiffs had fa

amination, he candidly admitted

4.2003 (Ex. D1), whereby land m ndants. PW3, Gurbachan Singh, lleged exchange deed, also ident on that on the same day, i.e., 2 nd possession of the suit land wa He categorically stated that there me. He further expressed ignoran the basis of the alleged exchang n the other hand, DW1, Gur Mewa Singh on the sale deed (Ex y effected through an unregister h a suggestion that the land had b denied the same and reiterated he suit land. DW2, Mewa Singh, hange and affirmed that the defe ute ever since the sale. e learned trial Court, while there was no credible proof of e preparation of a fresh writing n of the document where the K ge deed appeared in different i g cross-examination. This, in th on about the genuineness of the d ailed to discharge the burden of p

the execution of the registered s measuring 5 kanals 14 marlas sto , who was produced as an attest tified his signatures but admitted

21.04.2003, the sale deed (Ex. D as delivered to the defendants un e was no mention of any exchan nce as to whether any mutation w e writing. rmit Singh, identified the thu x.D1) and deposed that no exchan red and unstamped writing. He w been transferred as per an exchan that the plaintiffs were never , also denied execution of any su endants continued in possession evaluating the entire eviden f any mistake in the sale deed t of exchange. The Court observ Khasra number was written in ink, which the scribe himself h he opinion of the Court, create document. The Court found that proving that the exchange deed w

- sale ood ting d in D1) nder nge was umb nge was nge r in uch n of nce, that ved had ed a

validly executed declaration or in Findings of the

15.

Fee the plaintiffs pr Bathinda. The l hearing both si judgment dated

16.

position that th through a regist been duly sancti Khasra Girdawa property on the sufficient eviden admitted during the suit property

17.

contention betw an exchange ha Khasra number highly improba executing any su relied upon by th any bona fide m

d, and accordingly, held that the njunction as prayed for. Consequ e lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the said judg referred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, af ides, upheld the findings of th

05.08.2016. e learned lower appellate Court he defendants had purchased th tered sale deed dated 21.04.200 ioned in their favour. The revenu ari, also reflected the defendants e basis of the said sale. The ap nce to establish these facts, and g their evidence that the defendan y. e learned appellate Court furt ween the parties was whether on t ad also taken place between them mentioned in the sale deed. T able. It observed that the def uch exchange deed, and had con he plaintiffs was fabricated. The mistake in the Khasra number,

e plaintiffs were not entitled to uently, the suit was dismissed. gment and decree dated 11.02.20 learned Additional District Jud fter reappraising the evidence he trial Court in a well-reason t observed that it was an admit he suit property from the plaint 03 (Ex. D1), and that mutation h ue record, including Jamabandi a as owners in possession of the ppellate Court held that there w d even the plaintiffs themselves h nts were in exclusive possession ther held that the only point the very same date, i.e. 21.04.20 m due to an alleged mistake in The Court found this version to fendants had categorically den nsistently asserted that the docum e Court reasoned that had there b , the natural and lawful course

- any 015, dge, ned tted tiffs had suit was had n of of 003, o be nied ment een

action would h (Tatima) either informal writing grave doubt on t

18.

accompanied by stated that they basis of the sale defendants pro recorded them a min. This, acco never transferre exchange had be

19.

admitted during possession in th the basis of the respective prop coupled with ad Court, reinforce a later creation, into another wri

20.

unregistered do exchanges are p

have been to execute a suppl on the same day or shortly th g of exchange. The absence of a the plaintiffs' story. e appellate Court also observed y delivery of possession. Both remained in possession of the e deed, and the revenue record duced Khasra Girdawaris (Ex as owners in possession of land ording to the Court, conclusive ed to the plaintiffs, thereby een acted upon. e learned appellate Court noted t g cross-examination that the defe he revenue record, and that no m alleged exchange deed. He furt erties was never exchanged. Th dmitted non-delivery of posses ed the defendants' contention tha possibly by converting the sign iting. e Court also emphasized that th ocument carried no evidentiary permissible in Punjab since Secti

ementary or corrective sale d hereafter, rather than executing any such corrective instrument c d that the alleged exchange was DW1 and DW2 had categorica suit property as its owners on corroborated their possession. T x. DX1 to DX4), which clea d comprised in Khasra No. 130/ ly established that possession w demolishing their claim that that even PW2, Harbans Singh, h endants were recorded as owner mutation had ever been entered ther admitted that possession of he absence of any mutation en ssion, in the view of the appell at the so-called exchange deed w natures obtained at the time of s e exchange deed (Ex. P1) being y value. While it is true that o ion 118 of the Transfer of Prope

- deed g an cast not ally arly /1/1 was had s in d on ntry, late was sale g an oral

Act is not applic such writing req Act. The absenc for the purpose o

21.

the suit was ho

08.06.2010, cla

21.04.2003. As filing a suit for accrues. The p

21.04.2003, wh filed after more Court rejected t filing of the s possession, hold suit within limit

22.

valid exchange land. The alleg inadmissible in substantiated by costs, affirming

23.

Fee appellants have judgments and

cable, the Court held that when a quires compulsory registration u ce of registration rendered the d of transferring title or possession e learned appellate Court also c opelessly barred by limitation. T aiming relief on the basis of per Article 58 of the Limitatio declaration is three years from laintiffs themselves admitted t hen the alleged exchange deed e than seven years was clearly b the plaintiffs' plea that the caus suit when the defendants alle ding that this was a false and co tation. e Court concluded that the plai had taken place or that they ev ged exchange deed was found n evidence, and the plea of m y any credible material. Accordin the findings and decree of the le eling aggrieved by the concurren e preferred this second appea decrees dated 11.02.2015 and 0

an exchange is reduced into writi under Section 17 of the Registrat document inadmissible in evide n. concurred with the trial Court t The plaintiffs had filed the suit the alleged exchange deed da on Act, the period of limitation the date when the right to sue f that the cause of action arose was executed. Therefore, the barred by limitation. The appel se of action arose a day before egedly attempted to take forci ontrived plea intended to bring intiffs had failed to prove that er came into possession of the to be doubtful, unregistered, mistake in the sale deed was ngly, the appeal was dismissed w earned trial Court. nt findings of the Courts below, al contending that the impugn

05.08.2016 are contrary to law a

- ing, tion ence that t on ated for first on suit late ible any suit not with

on facts and o strenuously urg

21.04.2003 and to show that Ex event oral excha therefore the ab cannot alone be same day was o mistake in the K since been in ph but the revenue

24.

was required to Findings of this

25.

On evident that the valid exchange title and posses plaintiffs stands and not a late unregistered wr whether possess fact delivered to these facets mus

ought to be set aside. Learne ged that the exchange deed has been fully proved by the pl x.P-1 is a post facto, fabricated o ange is recognised under the law bsence of registration of the wr e a ground to reject their case. T only intended to save registrati Khasra number in the sale deed ( hysical possession of the suit lan entries continue to bear a wrong e matter raises a short question o be issued to the respondent. s Court n a careful and anxious perusal e critical questions which requir ever took place between the par sion to the plaintiffs; (ii) wheth s proved to be a contemporaneo er contrivance; (iii) whether riting of exchange in the circum sion, which is the primary fact r o them; and (v) whether the su st be examined in the light of the

d counsel for the appellants Ex.P-1 was validly executed laintiffs on record. There is noth or forged document and that in w as being permissible in Punjab riting relied upon by the plaint The writing of an exchange on on fee and arose out of a genu Ex.D-1) and that the plaintiffs h nd pursuant to the alleged exchan g Khasra number. of fact and law, therefore, no not l of the record, the evidence, i re determination are: (i) whethe rties on 21.04.2003 so as to trans her Exhibit P-1 as tendered by ous document executed on that d the plaintiffs can rely upon mstances of the present case; relied upon by the plaintiffs, was uit is barred by limitation. Each e record.

- has on hing any tiffs uine have nge tice t is er a sfer date an

(iv) s in

26.

Tur Court has meti prepared Ex.P-1 or drafted and, portion of Ex.P differed from th material signific have been execu the instrument raises a real and document. The t that feature as g going to the cor date alleged.

27.

and the defence admitted the ex further admitted in possession. P examination tha stood delivered with any affirma the other side, straightforward possession and

rning first to the oral and docum culously noted that PW-1 (the 1) could not satisfactorily explain crucially, admitted in cross-ex P-1 (the portion where the Khas he ink used in the remainder of t cance. Where a party relies upo uted at a given point of time, an were written at different times d legitimate doubt as to the conte trial Court and the first appellate gravely suspicious. It is not a m re of the plaintiffs' case that an e e evidence of PW-2, one of the e witnesses must be read togeth xecution of the registered sale d d that the defendants were record PW-3, though initially identifying at on the same date the sale deed in pursuance of the sale. He d ative account of delivery of poss DW-1 and DW-2, who were p testimony that the defendants h ownership of the suit property

mentary evidence on record, the t e scribe/advocate who purporte n when the document was presen xamination that the ink used i sra number is set out marked ' the document. That admission is on a written instrument asserted ny internal evidence that portions s, or in different inks, necessa emporaneity and genuineness of e Court were therefore right to tr mere hyper-technicality but a ma exchange was in fact effected on e plaintiffs, PW-3 another witne her. PW-2 in his cross-examinat deed Ex. D-1 dated 21.04.2003 ded in the revenue entries as own g his signatures, conceded in cro d was executed and that possess did not support the plaintiffs' c session pursuant to an exchange. produced by the defendants, g have been and remain in exclus on the basis of the registered s

- trial edly nted n a A') s of d to s of arily f the reat atter ess, tion ners oss-sion case On ave sive

deed and the re revenue entries the evidence, w cogent and cons favour so as to a

28.

permissible in P practice may p submission und alleged exchang upon in Court a withstand basic deed (Ex. P-1) internal discrepa An unregistered invoked to disp established reve therefore correc doubtful footing D-1 and the mut

29.

Mo by the defendan substance of the to exchange. Ye occupation, that

evenue record. Those witnesse in support of the defendants' po when fairly assessed, is that the sistent material, that the purport alter title or effect a transfer of po e appellant's reliance on the p Punjab is not without legal found permit oral transactions in som erscores an important corollary: ge into a written instrument, and as evidence of a change of title a evidentiary scrutiny. In the pr is in writing yet is unregistere ancies (different inks) which the d writing which is materially in place a contemporaneously exe enue record without cogent corro ctly observed that the unregistere g, cannot be given the weight ne tations recorded in favour of the oreover, the record shows that th nts to the plaintiffs in respect of t e plaintiffs' claim. They assert o et the evidence shows that the t the revenue record i.e. Jamaban

s identified the sale deed and ossession. The cumulative effec plaintiffs have not established, ted exchange ever operated in th ossession. proposition that oral exchange dation in principle; equity and lo me circumstances. But that v : where parties choose to reduce d where the written paper is rel and of possession, the writing m resent case the purported exchan ed and, more damagingly, exhib e scribe himself could not reconc nconsistent within itself cannot ecuted registered sale deed and oboration. The first appellate Co ed writing, standing alone on suc ecessary to disturb the effect of defendants. here was no delivery of possess the suit land. Possession is the v ownership and possession pursu defendants continued in exclus ndi and Khasra Girdawari, record

- t of by heir e is ocal very e an lied must nge bits cile. t be d an ourt ch a Ex. sion very uant sive

the defendants a basis of the alle and that posses delivery of poss uncorroborated the other side p prevailing. The possession and t

30.

plaintiffs' cause exchange was owners by exch period prescribe for a suit for dec instituted suit on to shift the date forcible act by t and appears to statutory limitat demonstrate tha years cannot be that the suit is h

31.

to save registra persuasive in

as owners in possession, and that eged exchange. PW-2 himself a sion was not exchanged. A wri session where the transfer of po by entries in the official revenu uts forward registered transfer a e Courts below properly trea the contradiction in the contemp e question of limitation is an in e of action, if any, crystallised executed. If the plaintiffs gen hange on that date they were un ed by law. Article 58 of the Lim claration from the date when the nly on 08.06.2010 well beyond e of accrual of cause of action the defendants on the eve of the have been an afterthought des tion. Whereas, here, the pleadin at the accrual of right occurred condoned; the first appellate Co opelessly barred by limitation. e appellants' suggestion that the ation fee and that this explains the face of the facts. Had

t no mutation was sanctioned on admitted that no Rapat was ente itten instrument unaccompanied ossession is the asserted effect ue records, in circumstances wh and revenue entries, is incapable ated the absence of delivery oraneous record as decisive facto ndependent and conclusive bar. T d on 21.04.2003 when the alle nuinely believed they had beco der a duty to seek relief within mitation Act prescribes three ye e right to sue accrues. The plaint the three-year period. The attem to a later date, such as an alle suit, is not borne out by the rec signed to escape the rigour of ng of plaintiffs and own evide in 2003, delay of more than sev ourt was therefore right to conclu exchange writing was created o s its unregistered character is the exchange been genuine

- ered d by here e of of ors. ged ome ears tiffs mpt ged cord ence ven ude only

contemporaneou steps to record i followed as a m favour of the de no supporting c an immediate documentary an defendants acqu possession ever

32.

doubtful and tha concurrent findi appellate Court permissible infe error that woul miscarriage of j below. Conclusion

33.

For same is dismiss Courts below ar

34.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

us the mode and circumstance it in the revenue records, and the matter of course. Instead the sal efendants was sanctioned and re ontemporaneous acts exist to co exchange and transfer of p nd oral evidence on record consi uired the suit property by regi since. e appellants' challenge to the at the suit is barred by limitation ings of fact reached by the tria t are based upon a proper e erences therefrom, and do not s ld justify interference in this justice requiring this Court to r the foregoing reasons, finding ed in limine. The concurrent jud re well reasoned, based on eviden nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

es of its execution, the immedi e delivery of possession would h le deed was registered, mutation eflected in the revenue records, orroborate the plaintiffs' accoun ossession. On the contrary, stently support the position that istered sale and have remained e findings below that Ex.P-1 n therefore cannot be sustained. T al Court and affirmed by the f evaluation of the evidence, dr suffer from any perversity or le forum. There is no demonstra upset the factual matrix accep no merit in the present appeal, dgments and decrees passed by nce and do not call for interferen stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- iate have n in t of d in is first raw egal able pted