2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Regular Second Appeal No. 2118 of 2011(O&M)
Attar Singh
v.
Ram Dhari & Ors.
{Decided on 16/05/2011}
(B) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.45--Suit for declaratory decree--Person aggrieved by an entry in record--Contention that jurisdiction of civil court to order correction of any entry in record of rights, annual record or register of mutations is barred u/s 158(2)(vi) of the Act--Section 45 of the Act stipulates that if any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession by an entry in a record-of-rights of in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter IV of Specific Relief Act--Consequently, suit is maintainable in the civil court in view of specific provision of Section 45 of the Act.
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No. 5907.C of 2011
Allowed as prayed for.
RSA No. 2118 of 2011
2. Attar Singh one of the legal representatives of defendant no. 1- Ram Sarup since deceased has filed the instant second appeal. Respondents no. 1 to 10/plaintiffs who filed the suit against Ram Sarup and others i.e. appellant and proforma respondents no. 11 to 32 including predecessors of some of them (since deceased) were non-suited by the trial court but have been successful in the lower appellate court.
3. Plaintiffs’ case is that Lakhi mortgaged his 11 bighas 17 biswas land with Kanhiya and Hari Singh on 26.2.1923 for Rs 1100/- and mutation no. 803 was sanctioned on 26.3.1923. However, the suit land measuring 12 biswas was not mortgaged. Plaintiffs’ predecessor Karmu who was recorded as joint owner of the suit land never mortgaged it with predecessors of the defendants. However, in the revenue record the plaintiffs and their predecessors were wrongly recorded as mortgagors and defendants and their predecessors were recorded as mortgagees of the suit land also. Mortgage of 11 bighas 17 biswas land has also since been redeemed vide mutation no. 2515 dated 29.11.1960. However, even thereafter the suit land continues to be recorded to be under mortgage. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that the aforesaid revenue entries depicting plaintiffs and their predecessors as mortgagors and defendants and their predecessors as mortgagees of the suit land are incorrect and are liable to be corrected. The plaintiffs also sought relief of possession of the suit land along with permanent injunction.
4. Defendants no. 1 to 6 (now represented by appellant and proforma respondents no. 11 to 31) contested the suit. However, it was admitted that land measuring 11 bighas 17 biswas was mortgaged with predecessors of the defendants on 26.2.1923. It was, however, pleaded that revenue entries regarding suit land are correct. It was pleaded that mortgage of the suit land was not got redeemed. Possession of the defendants over the suit land is as mortgagees with the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs and their predecessors. Various other pleas were also raised.
5. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2010 dismissed plaintiffs’ suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiffs has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2011 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs stands decreed. Feeling aggrieved, Attar Singh one of the legal representatives of defendant no. 1 has filed the instant second appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
7. It is undisputed as also borne out from the revenue record that there was a single mortgage which has been redeemed. The mortgage was for Rs 1100/- whereas the mortgagors paid Rs 1150/- for redemption of the mortgage. Consequently, irrespective of whether suit land was under mortgage or not, the suit land is no longer under mortgage because mortgage of the entire mortgaged land stands redeemed. Consequently, defendants have no right to continue in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, plaintiffs being owners of the suit land are entitled to possession thereof. Revenue entries depicting the plaintiffs as mortgagors and defendants as mortgagees of the suit land have been rightly held by the lower appellate court to be wrong and illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being owners of the suit land have been rightly granted possession thereof along with injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of section 158(2)(vi) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (in short, the Act) jurisdiction of civil court to order correction of any entry in record of rights, annual record or register of mutations is barred. It was accordingly contended that civil court
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.