HARDIT SINGH Vs. GULZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, dated June 7, 1969, by which he reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this litigation are that the plaintiff was the owner of 30 kanals and 19 marlas of agricultural land in Patti Dhillon of village Buttar and defendants owned 40 kanals of agricultural land with rights of watering from the well in the same village. The plaintiff exchanged the aforesaid land with that of the defendants. In the Girdawari relating to Rabi 1956 entered on March 13, 1956, the land given in exchange to the defendants was shown to be in their (defendants) possession. The entry in the Khasra Girdawari made by the Patwari is "ghair maurusi bila lagan barue tabadla kham" and the same continued upto Kharif 1964. The Khasra Girdawari of the land given by Gulzara Singh etc., defendants, to Hardit Singh, was entered in the name of the plaintiff on October 28, 1966, wherein he was shown as ghair maurusi bila lagan barue tabadla kham. No report of exchange was made to the Patwari in 1956 when the exchange took place. The Patwari entered a report at No. 123 in the Roznamcha relating to the year 1964-65 at the instance of the defendants. A mutation was entered on the basis of the report regarding the exchange on December 9, 1964. The mutation first came up before the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, who referred the same to the Assistant Collector, First Grade, as it was disputed one. The Assistant Collector rejected the mutation on May 6, 1965. During the pendency of the mutation, the plaintiff instituted a suit for possession of the land given by him to the defendants stating that they did not exchange the land permanently but that was only an arrangement for cultivation of the land. He also stated that the said arrangement was made for a period of five or six years. The trial Court held that the exchange was only for the purposes of cultivation and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, who reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff having felt aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was made applicable in the State of Punjab on March 26, 1955. He further urges that in view of the application of the aforesaid Sections, the exchange could be effected only by means of a registered document and that the same could not be done orally. He has in support of his contention referred to Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first clause of the Section defines 'exchange' and the second clause provides as to how a transaction of exchange shall be effected. The second clause states that transfer of the property in completion of an exchange can be made only in the manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale. The learned counsel has laid great emphasis that according to the aforesaid clauses, the exchange can be effected in the same manner in which sale can be made. The State Government for reasons best known to it has made applicable Sections 54, 107 and 123 and not Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act to the State of Punjab. In case, the State Government desired that exchange of immoveable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/- should be effected by a registered document, it could apply Section 118 by the same notification. It appears that the State Government did not want to apply the provisions of Transfer of Property Act regarding exchange in the State of Punjab. In the absence of the notification that Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act applies in the State of Punjab, I am unable to hold that the exchange relating to immoveable property of value of more than Rs. 100/- can be effected by a registered document. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance and the same is rejected.