SURINDER SINGH Vs. PALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is regular second appeal directed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 8.10.2008 passed by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Wahniwal, PCS, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, was dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for possession against defendant with the allegation that father of the plaintiff was in possession of the plot measuring 10 marlas as shown in red colour in the site plan. The defendant is in possession of the plot measuring 6 marlas. The house of the defendant comprised three rooms, bathroom, latrine, hand-pump, electric motor and boundary wall. The exchange deed/affidavit was executed by the defendant on 20.1.1998 in the presence of witnesses whereby the plaintiff and defendant exchanged the aforesaid houses with each other. The defendant paid Rs. 22,500/- to plaintiff in lieu of excess land measuring 4 marlas in the house of the plaintiff. The defendant did not give possession of the house to the plaintiff despite repeated requests but the plaintiff had delivered possession of his house measuring 10 marlas. This exchange deed is null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as defendant did not act as per exchange deed and had not handed over the possession of house measuring 6 marlas. The plaintiff asked defendant many times to hand over the possession of the house in question to the plaintiff, but to no effect. Hence the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that suit is time barred, false and frivolous and that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. He had suppressed the material facts. In fact after exchange the possession of the land in question was taken by the plaintiff from defendant in presence of witnesses. Now, Jagir Kaur widow of Chanan Singh, who happens to be mother of plaintiff is residing in this house. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous and is not maintainable. The factum of exchange was admitted. The transfer of possession was also admitted.