Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhandari and Tek Chand JJ.
Mt.Chinto
Versus
Narinjan Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 16(P) of 1952,
Decided On : MAY 1, 1957
ESTOPPEL - ADMISSION - GRATUITOUS ADMISSION ON A PURE QUESTION OF LAW - RETRACTION - VALIDITY OF GIFT - COLLATERALS' CLAIM TO PROPERTY - ADMISSION BY DAUGHTERS OF DONEE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
Udmi, a sonless proprietor, transferred a plot of land to his pichhlag son Badhawa by way of gift. The collaterals of Udmi challenged the validity of the gift, but a compromise was reached, and the matter was referred to arbitration. According to the award, Badhawa was to give 15 bighas of land to the collaterals immediately and become the exclusive owner of the remaining portion of the property. After Badhawa's death, the collaterals took possession of the entire property. Badhawa's daughters objected, and the revenue authorities set up an inquiry. The daughters submitted an application to the revenue authorities admitting that the collaterals alone were entitled to succeed and that the daughters had no right or interest in the land. The revenue officers, however, mutated 67 bighas of land in favor of the daughters. The collaterals brought a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to remain in possession of the property. The trial court and the appellate court granted a decree in favor of the collaterals.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appeal was within time, that the plaintiffs (collaterals) had no right or interest in the property of Badhawa, that the admission of the daughters was not binding on them, and that the courts were not precluded from deciding the rights of the parties on a true view of the law. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs throughout.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was barred by time. 2. Whether the collaterals had any right or interest in the property of Badhawa. 3. Whether the admission of the daughters was binding on them.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The period of limitation applicable to the suit is that which is in force at the time the suit is brought. The rule of limitation applicable to the present case is the one that was in force when the suit was instituted, not the one that was in force when the appeal was filed. 2. The collaterals had no right or interest in the property of Badhawa because the property was non-ancestral qua the collaterals, and Badhawa had become the absolute owner of the property. 3. The admission of the daughters was not binding on them because it was a gratuitous admission on a pure question of law, and there was no estoppel by conduct or representation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs throughout.
Bhandari, J.
1. This appeal raises the question whether it is open to a person to withdraw a gratuitous admission made by him on a pure question of law.
2. It appears that on the 4th July 1899 one Udmi, a sonless proprietor, transferred by way of gift a plot of land measuring 59 bighas 10 biswas to his pichhlag son by the name of Badhawa. The collaterals of Udmi challenged the validity of the gift but the parties came to a compromise that on the death of Udmi 1/3rd of the ancestral land was to devolve on Badhawa and the remaining 2/3rd on the collaterals. This agreement does not appear to have terminated the dispute and the matters in controversy between the parties were eventually referred to an arbitrator who gave his award on the 16th April 1914. According to his award Badhawa was to give 15 bighas of land to the collaterals immediately and was to become the exclusive owner of the remaining portion of the property. A decree in terms of the award was passed by the Council of Regency Kalsia on the 25th April 1914.
The collaterals did not take possession of the property to which they were entitled under the award but when Badhawa died in the year 1943 they took possession of the entire property belonging to him. Chinto and Kartaro, daughters of Badhawa, objected to the highhandedness of the collaterals in taking pos session of the land belonging to their father and the revenue officers of the Kalsia State set up an enquiry as to the person or persons who were entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased. On the 8th July 1944 the daughters submitted an application to the revenue authorities in which they admitted that the collaterals alone were entitled to succeed and that the daughters had no right or interest whatsoever in the land. The revenue officers, however, mutated 67 bighas of land in favour of the daughters on the 19th April 1946 not withstanding the admissions made by the daughters.
3. A few days later, that is on the 23rd April, 1946 the collaterals brought a suit for a declaration that they were entitled to remain in possession of the property. The trial Court granted a decree in favour of the collaterals on the ground that although the land which was transferred by Udmi to Badhawa in the year 1899 was non-ancestral qua the collaterals and although Badhawa had become the absolute owner thereof the daughters had re- linquished their right to this land in their application to the revenue authorities in the year 1944 and were not entitled to the property in question. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the learned District Judge and later by a learned Single Judge of the Pepsu High Court. The daughters were dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below and have come to this Court in appeal under Section 52 of Ordinance No. 10 of 2005 Bk.
4. The learned counsel for the collaterals raises a preliminary objection that the present appeal is barred by time. The order under appeal was passed by Passey, J. on the 21st December 1951; an application for the grant of a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal was presented on the 21st January 1952; the certificate was granted on the 1st April 1952 and the daughters filed the present appeal the same day.
5. The question as to whether the appeal is or is not barred by time turns upon the construction of the rulers framed by the Pepsu High Court regarding applications for grant of certificates under Sub-clause (d) of Clause (9) and Clause (44) of the Patiala Judicature Far-(sic) 1999. Rule (6) which was in force when (sic) collaterals brought the suit against the daughters was in the following terms.
"(6) Every appeal preferred under Clause (44) of the Patiala Judicature Farman 1999 shall be filed within sixty days from the date of judgment, decree or order appealed from and shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed from and of the decree, if any prepared in pursuance thereof and also of the order granting the certificate un
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
