Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Gajjan Singh – Appellant
Vs.
Roop Singh – Respondent
RSA No. 2228 of 2011
Decided On : 17-04-2018
For the Appellant : Amarjit Markan
For the Respondent: Jagdish Manchanda
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of revenue entries, knowledge of parties, and the law of limitation in determining the validity of mutation and exchange of land.
Headnote:
Mutation - Suit Land - Punjab Land Revenue Act - [1955-56 of Village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil and District Patiala] - The court discussed the mutation of exchange No.486 sanctioned on 23.01.1959 allegedly showing the exchange of half share of 37 bighas by Chamel Singh, Hazara Singh and Hamel Singh sons of Jai Singh and the resultant entries of subsequent jamabandies from 1959-60 to 1999-2000. The court highlighted the illegality, nullity, and lack of effect of the mutation on the plaintiffs' share in the suit land, emphasizing the incorrect and fraudulent nature of the entries in the revenue record and the need for correction as per the Punjab Land Records Manual and Punjab Land Revenue Act.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership and mutation of exchange of land measuring 165B-7B in Village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil and District Patiala. The plaintiffs claimed co-ownership and challenged the mutation of exchange No.486 showing the exchange of half share of 37 bighas, seeking declaration, injunction, and correction of the revenue record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred by the law of limitation as the mutation and exchange were known to the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest, and the suit was filed 43 years after the exchange. The court dismissed the suit based on the evidence of revenue entries and the knowledge of the parties.
Issues: The issues included co-ownership, entitlement to declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, limitation, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, maintainability, verification, and mis-joinder of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was time-barred and the plaintiffs' knowledge of the exchange and mutation precluded their cause of action. The court emphasized the importance of revenue entries and the lack of evidence to challenge the legality of the mutation and exchange.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the regular second appeal, finding no grounds for interference and no substantial question of law for determination.
Amit Rawal, J.
The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit claiming declaration that the plaintiffs are co-sharer in equal share to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit land referred to in the plaint measuring 165B-7B, as per entries of khewat No.45 of jamabandi 1955-56 of Village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil and District Patiala by challenging the mutation of exchange No.486 sanctioned on 23.01.1959 allegedly showing the exchange of half share of 37 bighas by Chamel Singh, Hazara Singh and Hamel Singh sons of Jai Singh and the resultant entries of subsequent jamabandies from 1959-60 to 1999-2000, to be declared as illegal, null and void having no effect on the half share of the plaintiffs in the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from claiming/continuing partition of the land on the basis of the entries in the jamabandies from 1959-60 to 1999-2000 (Khewat No.112) as well as mandatory injunction directing the State of Punjab to delete wrong entry showing exchange of 1/2 share of 37 bighas, had been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2008 and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2011.
2. Succinctly, the facts as enumerated from the pleadings of the parties to the suit are that the plaintiffs instituted the suit on the premise that the suit land was jointly owned by Bachan Singh son of Shyam Singh to the extent of half share on one side and Chamel Singh, Hazara Singh, Hamel Singh sons of Jai Singh in equal shares to the extent of half share on the other hand, as per jamabandi for the year 1955-56 situated in the aforementioned village. Bachan Singh son of Shyam Singh, co-sharer, had died and left behind his widow Gurdial Kaur/defendant No.1, Roop Singh defendant No.2, Harpal Singh and Kulwinder Singh/defendant Nos.3 and 4-Grandsons. Chamel Singh, co-sharer also died and left behind two sons, namely, Gurdev Singh and Ishar Singh/plaintiff Nos.8 & 9. Hazara Singh had died and left behind three sons, namely, Gajjan Singh, Labh Singh, Chhaju Singh/plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Hamel Singh had died and left behind two daughters, namely, Amar Kaur, Jangir Kaur and two sons, Jangir Singh and Raghbir Singh/plaintiff Nos.4 to 7, but the name of Hamel Singh was wrongly written as Chamel Singh.
3. Bachan Singh co-sharer was in possession of Khasra Nos.252, 253, 254, 255, 256 and 257 measuring 37 bighas. Vide report No.155 dated 20.01.1958 as recorded in the Roznamcha Wakiati of the Patwari Halqa, Bachan co-sharer alone exchanged the said 37 bighas with Gurcharan Singh and Harnek Singh sons of Phuman Singh and in lieu thereof, both Gurcharan and Harnek Singh gave khasra Nos.528(7-4), 529(4-5) measuring 11B-10B, situated in Village Ucha Gaon in exchange to Bachan Singh. Chamel Singh and other set of co-sharers were not party to the exchange, but mutation bearing No.486 was, thus, illegally sanctioned at the behind of the plaintiffs on 23.01.1958 showing the exchange of half share of 37 bighas, therefore, the same was illegal, null and void, much less, nonest and could not effect the right of other set of co-sharers and the successors-in-interest of the plaintiff, who are the plaintiffs and in possession of the suit land. The entry in the jamabandis post mutation was also incorrect and liable to be corrected. The exchange of khasra numbers ibid should have been entered form the share of Bachan Singh/co-sharer in the names of Gurcharan Singh and Harnek Singh in the cultivation column in the joint Khewat. In other words, it was averred that the land could not be taken out of the joint khewat and to reduce the area of the joint khewat from 165B-7B to 139B-17B and then to 132B-12B without any valid reason or taking recourse to legal process as per the procedure prescribed in the Punjab Land Records Manual and Punjab Land Revenue Act. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs were
