IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

Date of Decision : 27.10.2025 Darshan Singh (Since deceased) through LR and Another ....Appellant VERSUS Bhupinder Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellants.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

CM-3483-C-2021 This is an application for condonation of delay of 1291 days in re-

filing the present appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 1291 days in re-

filing the present appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

CM-3484-C-2021 This is an application for condonation of delay of 159 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 159 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants– plaintiffs assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, and the learned District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.2016, affirmed the said findings and dismissed the appeal.

Brief facts

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of land measuring 5 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 130/1/1 min (5–14), Khata No. 43/106, situated in the revenue estate of village Kal Jharani, District Bathinda, and that the entries in the revenue record showing the defendants as owners are wrong and liable to be corrected. They also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land or alienating it in any manner.

3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were originally owners of the suit land, which they had sold to the defendants. However, soon thereafter, an exchange agreement was entered into between the parties on 21.04.2003, whereby the plaintiffs allegedly exchanged their land measuring 5 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 105/2/3 min (5–14) with the defendants’ land comprised in Khasra No. 130/1/1 min (5–14). The plaintiffs claimed that since the execution of the said agreement of exchange, they had been in possession of the suit land as owners, cultivating it and enjoying its usufructs.

4. The plaintiffs further pleaded that while executing the sale deed on 21.04.2003, a clerical error occurred in the office of the scribe, as Khasra No.

130/1/1 min (5–14) was mistakenly written instead of Khasra No. 105/2/3 min (5– 14), which was intended to be sold. Upon realizing the mistake, late Darshan Singh and his brother Harbans Singh (plaintiffs) approached the defendants, who allegedly agreed that instead of executing a new sale deed, both sides would execute an exchange agreement to correct the error and avoid double expenses. Consequently, the exchange agreement was drawn and executed on the same day, i.e., 21.04.2003, at the Tehsil Complex, Bathinda. As per the plaintiffs, both parties signed the document, and attesting witnesses, Chuhar Singh and Gurbachan Singh, residents of village Kal Jharani, also signed and thumb-marked the same. It was contended that possession was mutually exchanged, and since then, the plaintiffs have been in continuous possession of the exchanged land, while the defendants have remained in possession of the other.

5. It was further stated that the defendants, taking undue advantage of the erroneous revenue entries, attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that on 7.06.2010, the defendants tried to take forcible possession but were prevented by the timely intervention of the villagers. They, however, continued to threaten dispossession, compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit on 8.06.2010.

6. The defendants filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, lo