LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-407

BHAG SINGH Vs. BANTA SINGH

Decided On December 11, 2014
BHAG SINGH Appellant
V/S
BANTA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013. Appeal preferred against the said decree was accepted by the first appellate court and accordingly, the suit filed by plaintiff-Bhag Singh was dismissed on 12.05.2014. This is how, plaintiff is before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a decree for possession of a vacant plot, measuring 5 marlas, after removing the construction thereon. By way of consequential relief, a decree for injunction was also claimed, restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property, in any manner. It was averred that Banta Singh son of Tara Singh was the owner of the suit property i.e. a plot, but the said property was exchanged with the plot of plaintiff-Bhag Singh, vide an exchange deed dated 03.03.1970. Since the execution of the exchange deed, plaintiff was in possession of the plot in question. Defendant with the help of Gram Panchayat forcibly occupied the said plot in the absence of the plaintiff, as he was away to his daughter for almost three years since 2007. And on his arrival, he found that the defendant had constructed a kacha kotha in the said plot. Plaintiff requested the defendant to remove construction and hand over the site to him in its original position, but to no avail.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that Banta Singh never exchanged the plot in question with the plot of Bhag Singh, pursuant to any exchange deed, dated 03.03.1970. It was maintained that defendant was the owner in possession of the plot in question and had installed an electric meter, had a ration card, voter card and was residing therein with his family. In fact, he had constructed three rooms, toka, hand pump and khurli in the suit property. The plot in question was claimed to be ancestral in nature. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.