The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish title in the property, and the widow became the absolute owner of the property on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA 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.

( 3 ) ONE Khushal Singh was the owner of an extent of land measuring 270 kanals 9 marlas in Village Gandhian, Tehsil and district Gurdaspur. The abovesaid land after consolidation was found measuring only 264 kanals and 7 marlas. The suit property is to 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 Karter 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.

( 4 ) ONE of the reversioners of Khushal Singh, namely, Chet Singh filed a suit bearing No. 194 of 1955 in the Court of Senior Sub judge, Gurdaspur 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 remarriage 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 according 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 appellate Court on 17. 8. 1957 by confirming the decree of the trial Court. No second appeal was preferred against 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.

( 5 ) AFTER the latest Mutation No. 1348 the said Durga 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. 1970, 9. 9. 1970 and 7. 10. 1970. Thereafter on 24. 4. 1973 the said Durga Devi died.

( 6 ) AFTER the death of Durga Devi, the reversioners including the legal representatives of Chet Singh (the plaintiff in OS No. 194 of 1955) filed the aforesaid suit bearing 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.

( 7 ) 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 lifetime of Durga Devi in view of the judgment in the earlier court proceedings. It was the contention of the plaintiffs, (the con