JATTU RAM versus HAKAM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 15-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JATTU RAM 
A 
v. 
HAKAM SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 
(KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882-Ss. 118, 199-Lan~Exchange of-
Plaintiff received land of defective title in exchange from defendant-Land 
returned under courl decree-Defendant gave some other land to plaintiff but 
claimed plaintiff's possession as tenant-at-will--Held, plaintiff came in pos-
C 
session in exchange and pot as tenant-at-will. 
Land and Tenancy Laws-Jamabandi entries-Held, are only for fiscal 
purpose and create no title. 
The defendant-first respondent exchanged certain lands with the · D 
plaintiff-appellant. Due to defect in title the first respondent suffered a 
decree in respect of the land exchanged with the plaintiff and the latter 
was deprived of 52 kanals 10 marlas of land. As compensation, the tlefen· 
dant delivered 47 kanals 1 maria of land to the plaintiff and promised to 
pay for the difference. 
E 
Later, when the defendant started alienting the land in favour of 
respondents No. 2 to 9, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the 
defendant had delivered possession of plaint-scheduled property in ex-
change and for consequential orders. The defendant admitted the factum 
of exchange but contended that the lands in possession of the plaintiff were F 
only as tenant-at-will though no rent was paid. The suit was decreed. 
On appeal by the defendant, the appellate court relied on the entry 
made by the Patwari in Jamabandi and allowed the appeal and dismissed 
the suit holding that the appellant was only a tenant. Plairrtill's appeal was G 
dismissed by the High Court in limine. The plaintiff filed the appeal by 
special leave. 
On the question : Whether the appellant was in possession of the 
plaint-scheduled lands in exchange as a consequence of compensating him 
for the lands he was deprived of in pursuance of court decree, 
H 
321 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the decree of the appellate court, 
B 
and restoring that of the trial court, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The first respondent was liable to return to the appellant 
lands to an extent of 52 kanals 10 marlas, as the latter had to surrender 
under a court decree the same amount of land received by him in exchange 
from the defendant over which the defendant had a defective title. In 
furtherance of the oral understanding the appellant came in possession of 
the plaint scheduled property in exchange. The entry in column 9 of 
Jamabandi to the effect "Tassawar Tabadla" (as a result of exchange) 
fortifies the stand of the appellant. The first respondent admitted that he 
C received no rent from the appellant. It is not his case that for the loss 
suffered by the appellant, the respondent had compensated him by paying 
the price of that land. It is, therefore, too credulous to believe that he let 
the appellant in possession of the plaint-scheduled property as a tenant-
at-will, and is a deliberate, desperate and false plea set up by him which 
D was wrongly accepted by the appellate court. The High Court failed to 
consider the crucial question. (324-D, G, 323-H) 
2.The Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purposes and they create 
no title. It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and 
acquiesced to it. It is a classic instance of fabrication of false entries made 
E 
by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made by the parties, though oral. 
(324-E] 
3. The decree of the appellate court is perverse, apart from being 
manifestly illegal. (325-A] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 528 of 
G 
1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.3.86 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 758 of 1986. 
Hardev Singh and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Appellant. 
Ujagar Singh, S.K. Bagga, Mrs. Sureshtha Bagga and Seeraj Bagga 
for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JATTIJ RAM v. H. SINGH [RAMASWAMY, J.J 
323 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave is at the behest of A 
the plaintiff Jattu Ram. He laid a suit for declaration that Hakam Singh, 
the first. respondent, had delivered possession of the plaint scheduled 
property in exchange and for consequential orders. In Case No. 253-1 of 
1981 by Addi. Senior Sub-Judge, Ferozepore, decreed on September 
8, 1983. On appeal, the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. B 
161/83 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on February 12, 1986. The 
High Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.