Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is averred that on 11.09.1984, Smt. Lachhman Kaur exchanged property measuring 792 square yards (hereinafter to be referred as the suit property) with the plaintiff in lieu of land measuring 2500 square yards comprised in khasra No.4389/1271, 4390/1271, Hadbast No. 172 situated at village Taraf Saidan, New Shiva Ji Nagar Ludhiana vide agreement of exchange dated 11.09.1984. Possession of land measuring 2500 square yards was given by the plaintiff to Smt. Lachhman Kaur as owner in exchange whereof, physical actual possession of portion measuring 400 square yards out of 792 square yards of suit property was given by Smt. Lachhman Kaur to the plaintiff as owner. The plaintiff was already residing in the said portion with his family and remaining portion of 10 shops was in occupation of tenants. It was further agreed that Smt. Lachhman Kaur and her husband would be entitled to realize rent of 10 shops till their lifetime. Kala Singh and Smt. Lachhman Kaur died on 25.05.1991 and 19.12.1998, respectively. After death of Smt. Lachhman Kaur, plaintiff was admitted by tenants as their landlord of the shops which are in occupation of defendants No.7 to 16.

"That I, Lachhman Kaur wife of Kala Singh son of Dhan Singh, resident of B-11-372, Jail Road, Ludhiana, am the executant of this agreement of exchange. That I am the owner in possession of House no. B-11-372, Jail Road, Ludhiana, the area of which is 792 Sq. yards and the boundaries thereof are as under:- East: Sargoda School etc. West: Kamran Road North: Gurjit Singh etc South: Jail Road. Today I, with free will and in full senses, have executed this agreement of exchange in lieu of property measuring 2500 Sq. yards situated at Taraf Saidan, Mohalla New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana comprised in Khasra no. 4389/1271 and 4390/1271, Hadbast no. 172 and we, Gurcharan Singh son of Kala Singh son of Dhan Singh have taken the possession of abovementioned property through General Power of Attorney vide vasika no. 670 dated 19.03.1975 and we have spent the money after selling the same. In lieu of the abovementioned constructed house no. 372, measuring 792 sq.yards, some part of which is vacant and 10 shops are constructed, whole amount has been recovered from 2500 sq. yards. The price of both the properties is same. As long as I and my husband Kala Singh are alive, we will reside there and continue to receive the rent of said ten shops. But, from today onwards, Gurcharan Singh son of Kala Singh has become owner in possession of this property. Gurcharan Singh is already in possession of 400 sq. yards and residing there. Therefore, this exchange deed has been scribed and I have appended my signatures after hearing and admitting the same as correct to use it as proof (sanad).

A plain and careful reading of the aforesaid extract from agreement for exchange makes it evident that possession of land measuring 2500 square yards situated at Taraf Saidan, Mohalla New Shiva Ji Nagar Ludhiana comprised in khasra No.4389/1271, 4390/1271, Hadbast No. 172 was taken through General Power of Attorney vide vasika No.670 dated 19.03.1975 and after selling the same, money has been spent by them. It is not clear as to who had spent the money after selling property measuring 2500 square yards. Even it is not clear as to when and by whom property 5 of 8 measuring 2500 square yards was sold. It is also not clear from Ex.P2 in whose favour this General Power of Attorney vide vasika dated 19.03.1975 was executed. However, there is a reference in the proceedings that in regard to property measuring 2500 square yards, Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Kala Singh son of Dhan Singh, father of plaintiff/appellant Gurcharan Singh. Nevertheless, it becomes an established position of the case that Gurcharan Singh was not owner of property measuring 2500 square yards on the date agreement for exchange was executed on 11.09.1984. It is a matter of common knowledge that if Gurcharan Singh was not owner of property measuring 2500 square yards in the year 1984 as that property already stood sold, there was no possibility of property measuring 2500 square yards being exchanged with the suit property, admittedly, owned by Smt. Lachhman Kaur. The document Ex.P2 certainly does not record any past transaction of exchange between the appellant and Smt. Lachhman Kaur, therefore, it cannot be termed as a memo of exchange recording past transaction. This fact alone is sufficient to negate plea of the appellant that through agreement of exchange Ex.P2, the appellant and Smt. Lachhman Kaur exchanged ownership of properties of their respective ownership coupled with delivery of possession.