This second appeal challenged a suit regarding a reported register (rapat rojnamcha) for land claimed to be exchanged. The High Court held that the appellants failed to discharge the onus to prove the exchange or their lack of possession, dismissing the appeal.
The second appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.4325 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4325 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.30.08.2016
Girraj and another .......Appellants
Vs.
Tej Ram and others ........Respondents Present: Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.11304-C and 11306-Cof 2016
For the reasons stated in the applications, delay of 37 days in
refiling the appeal is condoned.
Applications are allowed.
C.M. No.11305-C of 2016
For the reasons stated in the application, permission to affix the
court fee has been granted.
Application is allowed.
RSA No.4325 of 2016(O&M)
The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit challenging the rapat rojnamcha bearing No.104 dated 8.10.1999, Ex.P2 and D1, had been dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them before the lower Appellate Court, met
with the same fate.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.03 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.4325 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
Mr. R.S. Hooda, learned counsel appearing for the appellantsplaintiffs submits that the total land in rect. No.83, Killa No.17 and 24/1 is 2 kanals. The appellants are the owners of 9 marlas. The rapat rojnamcha is with regard to the aforementioned land. On having acquired the knowledge, they filed the suit. The defendants set up the plea of exchange. Exchange could not be drawn in the absence of registration where the value of the property is more than `100/-. The defendants did not step into the witness box and even their witnesses have not supported this plea. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, discharged the onus as there was no property given in exchange whereas on the contrary, the alleged property in exchange is still in possession of the plaintiffs. All these facts have gone unnoticed, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as there is gross illegality and perversity by formulating the substantial questions of law as drawn in the memorandum of appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and appraised the paper book. Ex.P12, khasra girdawari, reflects the factum of exchange. There is no denial to the said fact, much less, oral exchange is also permissible. Since the property situated in abadi deh , sale deed of the same cannot be executed except by rapat rojnamcha . No explanation has come forth for filing the suit immediately thereafter, since the suit has been filed in the year 2007. Even khasra girdawari is of the year 2000. I am of the opinion that it is an act of aggrandizement whereby value of the property over a period of time increased and it is in this background of the matter, suit has been filed.
There is another aspect of the matter. The Courts below relied upon the report of the local commissioner to find that the plaintiffs had
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.03 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.4325 of 2016 (O&M)
-3-
never been in possession of the property. Otherwise also, no documentary has been led to show that there was no exchange and the plaintiffs continued in possession like ration card, chulah tax, driving licence, passport and so on.
In my view the plaintiffs have miserably failed to discharge the onus and the Courts below have rightly so declined to exercise the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. I do not find any reason to differ with the same, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal.
The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
August 30, 2016 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.09.03 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants discharged the onus regarding the alleged exchange of property.
Whether there is a substantial question of law arising for the second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girraj
Tej Ram
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
