WARJIT SINGH Vs. AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING failed before the trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court, the Appellant -Warjit Singh has preferred this regular second appeal. Warjit Singh -plaintiff -appellant was the owner of 19 acres of land situated at village Peedal, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra. He had appointed his wife as General Power of Attorney. She entered into an exchange of land of Warjit Singh with the land of Avtar Singh and Smt. Surjit Kaur -respondents on 12.01.1977. A judgment and decree dated 21.02.1978 (Ex. P -5) whereby Avatar Singh and his wife were declared to be owners in possession of land they got in exchange was passed. The plaintiff was declared owner of land measuring 36 kanal as per decree dated 21.02.1978 (Ex. P -4). Consequently, the mutation was effected on the basis of exchange and entry of possession was changed in the revenue records. Defendants No. 1 and 2 sold 8 Kanals of land out of the land which they got in exchange to one Pal Singh.

(2.) WARJIT Singh -plaintiff had challenged the mutation effected by his wife on the ground that at the time of exchange, he was living outside India for about 15 years and had appointed his wife as his General Power of Attorney. He used to remit the money of his wife to invest the same on land. On his return in 1977, he asked for account from his wife, which she did not provide and thereafter left the company of the plaintiff and started living separately. The plaintiff got Power of Attorney in the name of his wife cancelled. The mutation was sanctioned on the basis of exchange on the basis of exchange on 04.04.1979. The Civil Court decree has been challenged on the ground that it has recognized and exchange of the immovable property worth more than Rs. 1,000/ - without registration and further that the oral exchange is not permissible. The plaintiff had also impleaded his wife as defendant No. 3 in the suit who had partly admitted the claim of the plaintiff thereby denying the exchange. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues:

(3.) LEARNED trial Court found no substance in the contention of the plaintiff and held that exchange is duly proved and dismissed the suit. The similar finding has also been recorded by the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of Warjit Singh.