JASWINDER SINGH & ANOTHER Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Jaswinder Singh and his wife Jasbir Kaur having been non-suited by both the Courts below have filed this second appeal. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant-respondent Mohan Singh alleging that defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit land measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas comprised of khasra Nos.24/2 (1-12) and 9/1 (1-12) although as cosharer in the total joint land. The said suit land also fell to the share of defendant in partition proceedings. On the other hand, plaintiffs had 3 kanals 4 marlas share in 7 kanals 12 marlas land of khasra Nos.10/2(1-08), 23/1/2(0-8) and 24/1(5-16) (hereinafter called, the exchanged land). The parties exchanged the aforesaid lands and accordingly possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs and possession of the exchanged land was given to defendant. Memorandum of exchange dated 09.03.2005 was executed between the parties. Since then plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. However, since formal possession as per partition order had not been delivered to the parties, the exchange was to be implemented in the revenue record after implementation of the partition order. The partition order was implemented subsequently. However, thereafter the defendant became dishonest and resiled from the exchange and threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing do.

(2.) The defendant while admitting that he was in exclusive possession of the suit land even before partition proceedings and the suit land fell to his share in partition proceedings also, broadly controverted the other plaint averments. The defendant denied the alleged exchange as well as the alleged memorandum of exchange. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land and formal possession thereof was also delivered to him vide report No.332 dated 21.04.2005.

(3.) Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.