Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P., dated 06.12.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants was dismissed and judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba , H.P. dated 02.08.2022 has been affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff /respondent was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction before the learned trial Court on 01.01.2013. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 169/187, Khasra No. 1696 measuring 02-06-00 bighas to the extent of 00-02-00 bighas at Mauza Grohan, Pargna Pichhla Diur Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. As per the averments made in the plaint, the defendants are strangers to the suit land having no right, title or interest over the same. It has further been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff never exchanged the suit land measuring 00-02-00 bighas, out of his land as referred in para 1 of the plaint, with defendants nor he lodged rapat No. 70, dated 30.10.2009 with Halqua Patwari regarding the so called exchange of the suit land.

3. As per plaintiff neither he exchanged the suit land with the defendants, nor lodged any rapat to this effect with Halqua Patwari and if his signatures have been obtained on said rapat No. 70 dated 30.10.2009, the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation. It has further been averred that the defendants in connivance with revenue officials have got the exchange mutation No. 744 dated 06.11.2009 attested in their favour, which mutation alongwith subsequent revenue entries are wrong, illegal, void and inoperative upon the rights of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has not exchanged the suit land comprised of Khata-Khatauni No. 169/187, Khasra No. 1696 measuring 02-06-00 bighas to the extent of 00-02-00 bighas situated at Mauza Grohan, Pargna Pichhla Diur Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P with the defendants nor he ever lodged rapat No.70 dated 30.10.2009 with Halqua Patwari, which is result of misrepresentation and fraud. Therefore, rapat No. 70, dated 30.10.2009, mutation No. 744 dated 06.11.2009 and subsequent revenue entries be declared as null and void. A further decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land, taking forcible possession thereof, changing its nature by raising construction, or alienating the same, was also sought.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellants by raising various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel etc.

5. On merits, it was averred in the written statement that the plaintiff willfully has exchanged his 00-02-00 bighas of suit land with the land of the defendants comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 12/15 situated at Mouza Garohan, Hadbast No. 201, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. and mutations No. 744 and 305 dated 06.11.2009, respectively to this effect have been attested and accepted. It was averred that the plaintiff has taken into possession 00-02-00 bighas of land with the land of defendants, comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 12/15 situated at Mouza Garohan, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. in pursuance to the exchange. The defendants have constructed two sheds over the suit land and he is in physical possession of the same.

6. After denying all the contents and averments as made in the plaint, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit

7. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement and all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated.

8. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

“1. Whether the plaintiff never exchanged the s