FAQIRIA AND OTHERS Vs. KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a registered deed dated 27th October, 1959, there was a mutual exchange between the plaintiff and the defendants of their respective lands detailed in suit. On 22nd February, 1972, Faqiria and others, one of the parities to the exchange, filed the present suit for possession of the land which they owned before the exchange deed was written, which was in possession of the defendants at the time of the suit, who happened to be the other party to the exchange deed, on the ground that the defendants, had played a fraud on the plaintiffs inasmuch as they had got a false record prepared from the Patwari showing their land to be of good quality, whereas it was found to be of most inferior quality. It was also pleaded that when the exchange deed was written the village was already under consolidation as notification for consolidation had been issued before the exchange deed was executed and therefore, the same was null and void in view of section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that the exchange deed was duly executed and registered and that the suit was hopelessly barred by time because the plaintiffs could not succeed unless the exchange deed was got set aside or cancelled which could be done within three years under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was further pleaded that the issue of notification had no effect on the exchange deed so far as the parties were concerned. While the trial Court decreed the suit, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit after recording the findings that the exchange deed was duly executed and that consolidation proceedings had no effect on the exchange deed so far as the parties were concerned. It was also found that the suit was hopelessly barred by time. This is plaintiffs' second appeal.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this second appeal. The exchange was by a registered deed dated 27th October, 1959 and soon after that the plaintiffs must have come to know that the land which was given to them in exchange was of extremely inferior Quality and was not of the quality which was agreed to be given to them Therefore, they had to file a suit on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation within three years of the exchange and the suit brought after more than 12 years is clearly barred by time.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.