Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhbir Singh vs Jagdish Singh on 3 April, 2018
RSA-6075 of 2014 (O&M)+ connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 3.4.2018
102 RSA-6075 of 2014 (O&M)
Sukhbir Singh ....Appellant
vs.
Jagdish Singh ....Respondent
102-A CR-6805-2015 (O&M)
Sukhbir Singh ....Petitioner
vs.
Jasbir Singh and another ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal and revision as common questions of law and facts are involved there in.
The appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing a suit filed by the appellant. The strange troika which is involved in this litigation is two brothers and one brother-in-law (sister's husband). The appellant Sukhbir Singh owned a truck and exchanged it with 16 Kanals of land owned by the respondent Jagdish Singh who was the sister's husband. On 26.9.1994 Jagdish Singh had entered into 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 12:02:53 ::: RSA-6075 of 2014 (O&M)+ connected case 2 agreement to sell 30 Kanal and 17 Marlas of land ( which included above mentioned 16 Kanals of land) to Jasbir Singh-elder brother of Sukhbir Singh. He filed a suit for specific performance on 6.5.2002. On the other hand, the appellant filed the instant suit for declaration on 15.6.2007 claiming that as a result of the exchange reference to above he had become the owner of 16 Kanals of land. On the one hand the suit for specific performance of Jasbir Singh was decreed right up to the Supreme Court. In the execution petition filed by Jasbir Singh the present appellant filed objections which, having not been decided, he filed the above-mentioned civil revision. As regards the suit filed by the appellant the Courts below held that the exchange having been effected by way of document, required registration and since the same was not registered it could not be looked into as evidence and consequently, dismissed the suit and hence the regular second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Courts below have misread the document and have wrongly considered it to be an exchange deed but it is actually only an agreement to exchange. I have gone through the document in question. I find that it is an ill-drafted, confused document. Different assertions have been made at different parts of the document. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a couple of sentences, as per which it was mentioned that both the parties can give effect to the document within one month either through Court or by any other means. As per him, this shows that it is not completed transaction and merely an agreement to exchange. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Jasbir Singh has pointed out that two important sentences which 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 12:02:54 ::: RSA-6075 of 2014 (O&M)+ connected case 3 appear in the document are :-
1. With effect from today the respective parties have become owner of the exchanged objects.
2. Possession has been handed over.
As per the counsel for the respondent-Jasbir Singh this shows that it was a complete exchange where title had passed and other confusing phrases and sentences would not detract from this essential fact.
In my opinion, the arguments of the counsel for the respondent- Jasbir Singh hold more weight. A reading of the document shows that title and possession both have passed and the phrase that one month's time is granted for giving effect to it seems to have sprung from a lack of understanding by the draftsman and the parties. Resultantly, no fault can be found with the judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. Once the suit filed by the appellant is out of the way, no interference can be made in the impugned order in the revision also. Consequently, the appeal and the revision are both dismissed.
Since the main cases have been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
3.4.2018 JUDGE
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No
Whether reportable - Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 12:02:54 :::