SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- The appellant owned land measuring 45 kanals and 12 marlas and the respondents owned 41 kanals and 10 marlas in Mauza Peelu Tehsil and District Hafizabad. The parties orally exchanged this land and delivered possession of their respective holdings. It was further averred in the plaint that the respondent had undertaken to get the exchange incorporated in the revenue record through a mutation but had backed out.
2. The suit was contested on which necessary issues were framed and it was tried. Vide judgment and decree dated 12-10-1976, the -suit filed by the respondents was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Court which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1977.
3. Despite notice for today's hearing, no body appears for the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the record examined.
4. The only contention pressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the oral exchange of land was hit by Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act and Section 118, of the Transfer of Property Act. The contention raised has no merit. The disputed property, undoubtedly, is rural agricultural land and unless the transaction was reduced into writing, Section 17 or Section 49 of the Registration Act will not apply. The learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate that the oral exchange took place, Section 118, of the Transfer of Property Act had been adopted in Punjab for a transaction involving rural agricultural land. Thus, Section 118 of the aforesaid Act also did not apply to the oral transaction of exchange.
5. As far as the merits of the case are concerned-The matter stands concluded by concurrent finding of fact in favour of exchange. Evidence in support of the exchange coming from Jamabandi for year 1972-73 Ex.P-1, copies of Khasra girdawaris Ex. P-2 & Ex P-3, copy of register Haqdaran Ex P- 4, Copies of Khasra Girdawaries Ex P-6 & Ex P-7 and Report Roznamcha Waqiati Ex P-8 was relied by the learned two Courts. I have also noted that there was no evidence in rebuttal produced by the petitioner.
6. In view of. The above, this appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.