Back
1997(6) Supreme 385
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Balwant Singh & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 1984
with
C.A. No. 293 of 1984
All Decided on 7-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Meera Agarwal, Mr. R.C. Mishra, Advocates for M/s. Agarwal & Mishra & Co. and Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shubodh Markandeya, Mr. Ajay Singh, Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal, Ms. Chitra Markandeya, Mr. P.D. Sharma and Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocates.
Held, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of mutation No. 1311 dated 19.7.54. The assumption on the part of the courts below that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she as a full owner had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired. (Para 20)
The trial court erred in assuming that by Mutation No. 1311, the widow divested herself of the title to the suit property by treating the mutation as gift and conveying title. Further it has not applied uniform test in appreciating the mutation entries. Be that as it may, we have already noticed that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. That being the position, Mutation No. 1311 cannot be construed as conveying title in favour of Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh or extinguishing the title of Durga Devi in the suit property. Consequently, the title to the suit property always vested with the widow notwithstanding the Mutation No. 1311. Viewed in this manner, the decision in the earlier proceedings namely, decree in Suit No. 194/55 even assuming operates as res judicata, will not be of any avail to the contesting respondents, (plaintiffs) in the present suit because the reliefs sought in the period proceeding was for a simple declaration that the mutation gift of 1954 would not affect the reversionary rights of reversioners. As noticed already, mutation entries will not convey or extinguish title in the property. Therefore, under Mutation No. 1311 neither Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh acquired title nor Durga Devi s title in the property got extinguished. The earlier court proceedings did not and could not convey title in favour of reversioners, as the relief sought was for a simple declaration as mentioned above. If no title as such was passed on under the alleged mutation gift , the limited right of the widow in the property would get enlarged on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (Para 24)
(ii) Mutation-Legal effect of-Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title-Those entries are relevant only for purpose of collection of land revenue-Entries in mutation must be taken as correct unless contrary is established. (Paras 19 & 24)
(iii) Abatement-Appeal-Death of one of the donees-Decree in favour of several reversioners against several independent donees having specified shares in identifiable properties-Deceased alone was donee of specific items of properties-His possession and enjoyment of properties was independent of others-His death would not abate whole of appeal-Decree being divisible-Inordinate delay of more than 25 years in filing application for bringing his LRs on record-Appeal stands abated in respect of properties given to deceased under gift deed. (Para 15)
Key Points: - Mutation entries do not convey or extinguish title; they are relevant only for collection of land revenue. (!) (!) - The court held that the widow did not divest her title by Mutation No. 1311 and remained in possession as a full owner on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (!) (!) - The subsequent Mutation No. 1348 was not treated as extinguishing the widow’s title; it could not be used to override prior findings and is discussed in context with possession and reversion rights. (!) (!) - The appeals were allowed except regarding properties gifted to Makan Singh under gift deed dated 9.9.70; the decree is divisible among reversioners and independent donees. (!)
JUDGMENT
K. Venkataswami, J.-Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 25 of 1976 dated 29.11.1983.
2. The facts are given below:
The defendants in Suit No. 158 of 1973 on the file of the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Gurdaspur, are the appellants in these two appeals. The plaintiffs-contesting respondents herein preferred the said suit under the following circumstances.
One Khushal Singh was the owner of an extent of land measuring 270 kanals 9 marlas in village Gandhian, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. The above-said land after consolidation was found measuring only 264 kanals and 7 marlas. The suit property is the said extent of 264 kanals and 7 marlas. The original owner, Khushal Singh, died issueless on 5.9.1950. Subsequently, the suit lands were mutated in the name of one Durga Devi widow of deceased Khushal Singh on 19.7.1952. The said Durga Devi purporting to fulfil her husband s desire of taking in adoption one Balwant Singh and Krtar Singh (both Minors) expressed her desire to mutate the lands in favour of the said minors Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh. Accordingly, the Mutation was effected on 19.7.1954 under Mutation No. 1311.
3. One of the reversioners of Khushal Singh, Chet Singh filed a suit bearing No. 194 of 1955 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Gurbaspur praying for a declaration that the mutation of gift-deed dated 19.7.1954 would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff after the death or after the re-marriage of Durga Devi. In the said suit the validity of the adoption of Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh was one of the issues and the trial Court found that the alleged adoption was not proved and the mutation would not bind the reversionary rights of the plaintiff in that suit after the death of the widow Durga Devi or after her marriage accoridng to custom. The defendants in that suit, the predecessors in title of the appellants herein (some of them), challenged the judgment and the decree of the trial Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1956 before the District Judge, Gurdaspur. That appeal was dismissed by the appeallate court on 17.8.1957 by confirmed the decree of the trial Court. No second appeal was preferred agaisnt that appellate court s judgment. After the judgment of the appellate Court, the suit lands were again mutated under Mutation No. 1348 in favour of Durga Devi.
4. After the latest Mutation No. 1348 the said Deurga Devi claiming to be the absolute owner of the suit property after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had executed four separate gift-deeds in favour of the appellants/their predecessors in title. Those gift-deeds were executed on 1.8.70, 9.9.1970 and 7.10.1970. Thereafter on 24.4.1973 the said Durga Devi died.
5. After the death of Durga Devi, the reversioners including the legal representatives of Chet Singh, (the plaintiff in O.S. No. 194 of 1955) filed the aforesaid suit bering No. 158 of 1973 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Gurdaspur, for recovery of possession of the suit lands, substantially on the basis of the decree in Suit No. 194 of 1955. It is stated that the earlier suit was filed as representative suit for the benefit of all the reversioners and as heirs of Khushal Singh who would be alive at the time of death of Durga Devi.
6. In the pleadings, it was stated that the mutation after the judgment of the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1956 (supra) reverting the land back to Durga Devi was of no consequence as the same was based on a misreading of the findings of the trial and appellate courts. Likewise, they also pleaded that the gift-deeds executed by Durga Devi asserting that she was the absolute owner of the property, will not confer any title on the donees beyond the life time of Durga Devi in view of the judgment in the earlier court proceedings. It was the contention of the plaintiffs, (the contesting respondents herein), that Durga Devi was not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
