RAM GOPAL ETC Vs. RAMPAT ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and the facts leading to it are these. The plaintiffs owned agricultural land measuring 63 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in village Kheri Sampla and through an oral transaction which took place on the 29th of July, 1956, they gave it in exchange for 69 Kanals 5 Marlas of land situated in the same village to defendants Nos. 1 to 5 who had purchased the land last mentioned from Suraj Bhan (defendant No. 6) by means of a sale deed registered on the 2nd of July, 1956. After the exchange the land obtained by the plaintiffs from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 was declared a surplus area under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the transfer in favour of the plaintiffs being ignored for the purposes of that Act. The plaintiffs then brought a suit for possession of the land which they had given in exchange to defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and that suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that the declaration of the land sold by Suraj Bhan to defendants Nos. 1 to 5 as a surplus area does not entitle them to rescind the exchange.

(2.) All that is contended by Mr. Jain on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants is that they had been defrauded by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 inasmuch as the latter had not informed the appellants at the time of the exchange that they (defendants Nos. 1 to 5) were "big landowners" whose lands were liable to be declared as surplus area and had thus suppressed from the appellants a material defect in their title. The contention is wholly without force. The plaintiffs must have known that the lands obtained in exchange by them were liable to be declared a surplus. Even if it be assumed that this fact was not known to them, then it was their duty to satisfy themselves as to the acceptability of what they were getting in exchange. There was no defect in the title of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 nor is there any in that of the plaintiffs; because the ownership of the land declared a surplus area is not affected by reason of the fact that it has been so declared. The revenue authorities are no doubt entitled to ignore the exchange for the purposes of declaring certain lands as surplus areas but that has nothing to do with the question of title. Before the exchange defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were the owners of that land and after the exchange the plaintiffs became its owners and continued to enjoy that status notwithstanding that it has been declared a surplus area (see Bhagat Gobind Singh v. Punjab State and Others, 1963 65 PunLR 105, and Sukhbir Singh and Others v. Financial Commissioner Development, Punjab and Others,1964 PunLR 608). No fraud or suppression of material defect in the title can thus be said to have been brought home to defendants Nos. 1 to 5.

(3.) In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.