Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1288
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.
Moman Ram - Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Kaur and Ors. - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 2588 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 15-05-2014
For the Appellant :B.R. Mahajan, Advocate
The legal principle established in the judgment is that in property disputes, the courts will consider the evidence presented to establish relationships and inheritance rights, and failure to challenge official orders through appropriate channels may render a suit not maintainable.
Headnote:
Mutation - Property Dispute - Punjab Land Revenue Act - [Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC for short)] - [Punjab Land Revenue Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming ownership of agricultural land after the death of his brother and mother. The defendant, claiming to be the widow of the deceased brother, applied for mutation of inheritance, which was sanctioned in her favor. The plaintiff contested the mutation, alleging that the defendant was falsely claiming to be the widow and that the mutation was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding that the defendant had established herself as the widow of the deceased and that the mutation was legal. The second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court, which found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the lower courts' judgments.
Issues: Ownership of the agricultural land, legality of the mutation, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, limitation, estoppel, proper valuation
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found that the defendant had provided evidence establishing her relationship with the deceased as his widow, including voter lists and oral evidence. The courts also held that the plaintiff failed to challenge the mutation order through the appropriate channels and that the suit was not maintainable in its present form.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the lower courts' judgments, dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and finding no merit or substance in the appeal.
1. Feeling aggrieved against concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby his suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this regular second appeal. Facts first.
Briefly put, facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court, are that the agricultural land measuring 32 kanals 13 marlas was situated in village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla vide Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 (hereinafter being referred as the suit land). One Santokh Singh son of Kura Singh son of Dinda resident of Cheeka, tehsil Guhla, was the owner in possession of the suit land. Said Santokh Singh was the real brother of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 Dever (brother-in-law) of defendant No. 3 and real uncle of defendants No. 4 and 5. Santokh Singh was unmarried and had been living with the plaintiff and was being looked after and served by the plaintiff. Santokh Singh had expired on 26.04.2001 leaving behind his mother Smt. Bani Devi as his only legal heirs. Smt. Bani Devi had also expired on 03.03.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and per-forma defendants No. 2 to 5 as her only legal heirs, being her sons, grand son and grand daughter. As such, after the death of Santokh Singh and Smt. Bani Devi, the plaintiff and performa defendant No. 2 were the owners in possession of 2/3rd share in equal shares and defendants No. 3 to 5 were the owners in possession in equal shares of 1/3 share of the suit land. There was no other legal heir of deceased Santokh Singh and Smt. Bani Devi, except the plaintiff and performa defendant.
2. Defendant No. 1 was actually Ranjeet Kaur wife of Hari Singh son of Ishar Singh resident of Dudian, Tehsil Munak, Distt. Sangrur but she was falsely claiming herself to be Maya Devi widow of Santokh Singh resident of Cheeka and daughter of Bhagwana @ Bhana resident of Bhana, Tehsil and District Kaithal. On the basis of her said false claim, the defendant No. 1 had applied for entering mutation in respect of the suit land in her favour as well as in favour of Smt. Bani Devi, before the revenue authorities. Mutation No. 8642 was entered, which was contested by the plaintiff before Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla but Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla had ordered to sanction the mutation in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi mother of Santokh Singh, vide order dated 10.7.2006. Impugned order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Asstt. Collector Ist Grade, Guhla vide which mutation No. 8643 had been ordered to be sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi was totally illegal, null and void, nonest, arbitrary, against law and facts and mutation was liable to be sanctioned in favour of plaintiff and performa defendants.
3. The impugned order dated 10.07.2006 was liable to be set aside on the grounds that Shri Santokh Singh (now deceased) son of Kura Singh died unmarried and he never married with alleged Maya Devi daughter of Bhagwana @ Bhana nor any female child was ever born from the wedlock of Santokh Singh and alleged Maya Singh nor died. Santokh Singh had been living with the plaintiff till his death and was being looked after and served by plaintiff. Smt. Bani Devi, mother of deceased Santokh Singh also expired on 3.3.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and performa defendants. Previously during her life time, Bani Devi was entitled to inherit the suit land and after her death, the plaintiff and performa defendants were entitled to inherit the suit land being the only legal heirs of Smt. Bani Devi and Santokh Singh. The Court of Collector Ist Grade, Guhla had erred in sanctioning the mutation No. 8643 in favour of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Bani Devi, illegally and unlawfully. No mutation can be sanctioned in favour of a dead person as Smt. Bani Devi had already expired on 3.3.2002 leaving behind the plaintiff and performa defendants as her only legal heirs. The defendant No. 1 w
