LAWS(P&H)-2004-4-72

BHAGWANA Vs. MOHINDER DASS

Decided On April 07, 2004
BHAGWANA Appellant
V/S
Mohinder Dass Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, 'the Code') 1908, challenging judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, dated 16.8.1982. The learned Addl. District Judge has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of the suit property as described in para 1 of the plaint and shown in plan Ex.P.3.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 89 of 1976 seeking possession of a plot along with a room (Kotha) alleging that the suit property was earlier owned by the defendant-appellant through a registered exchange deed dated 10.7.1974. By way of exchange a plot measuring 20 sq. yard belonging to the plaintiff-respondent was alleged to have been transferred to the defendant-appellant. On the allegation that 4/5 months before the filing of the suit when the plaintiff-respondent was absent, the defendant-appellant had taken possession of the exchanged plot and proceeded to repair the room without any right.

(3.) ON issue No. 1, it was found that Ex.P1 is a registered document by the Sub-Registrar, Sonepat and the same has been duly executed. In support of document Ex.P1 statement made by the plaintiff-respondent appearing as PW.1 Mohinder Dass, statement made by Prem Chand, petition writer PW.2 and Giani Ram Lambardar PW.3, have also been relied upon. However, statement made by defendant-appellant Bhagwana denying the execution of the exchange deed on the ground that he was not in fit mental condition or that the exchange deed Ex. P.1 was not read over and explained to the parties as stated by Pirthi Singh DW.3, have not been believed. On issue No. 2 it was held that there was no ambiguity ever with regard to the area, dimensions, location and the boundaries of the plot given by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff- respondents in the exchange deed. The views of the learned Additional District Judge in this regard read as under :-