Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SURJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
JATINDER SINGH – Respondent
R.S.A. Nos. 5541, 5542 of 2016
Decided on : 23-02-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Armaan Saggar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Land Revenue-Sanction of Mutation – Merely because the mutation of the sale-deed of agricultural land was not sanctioned in the revenue record, the rights of a vendee in the sale-deed and his successor would not evaporate.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 S.123 & S.158 – Partition Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Any order passed by the revenue authorities, in a partition proceeding, during the pendency of the suit before civil court regarding question of title, is ultimately subject to the decision of the civil court. (Para 12)
       Section 117 of the Act provides that if a question of title with respect to the property, which is sought to be partitioned, is raised or is involved, the Assistant Collector may either himself proceed to determine the question as a court or direct the parties to get it determined from the competent court. In the present case, question of title was involved, as the plaintiffs were claiming the property on the basis of a registered sale-deed, which has never been set at naught. Such being the position and the civil suit was pending, the revenue authorities ought to have stayed their hand from proceeding further in the partition proceedings however, for the reasons best known, proceedings continued.
       (B) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Sale deed – Sanction of Mutation – Merely because the mutation of the sale-deed of agricultural land was not sanctioned in the revenue record, the rights of a vendee in the sale-deed and his successor would not evaporate – The sale-deed is a document of transfer of title, whereas mutation is only a fiscal entry for the purpose of updating the revenue record and collection of land revenue – Title is conferred by a registered sale-deed and not sanction of the mutation – Transfer of Property Act, 1881, S.51. (Para 13)
       (C) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 S.158 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Partition Proceedings – The question of title was pending in the civil court – The plaintiffs were ex parte before the revenue authorities – Injunction in favour of the applicant was granted by the civil court – Once the question of title was pending, it was not proper for the revenue officers to ignore the order and proceed with the trial of the case. (Para 17)
       (D) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 S.158 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Partition Proceedings – Orders of partitioning the property despite of injunction granted by the civil court in the previous suit are illegal, null and void – Such impugned orders of revenue authorities set aside. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this judgment, two appeals, arising out of consolidated judgment of both the courts below, while deciding two civil suits, are being disposed of.

2. Defendant-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. Dispute in the present case is between the family members. At one point of time, Smt. Gurnam Kaur was the owner of the property. She executed a sale-deed on 14.3.1972 in favour of her son namely Amrik Singh. However, unfortunately the aforesaid sale-deed was not mutated/entered in the revenue records.

3. Defendant in the suit, who is other son of Gurnam Kaur, pleaded right in the property on the basis of a registered Will dated 12.4.1982. First suit filed by the plaintiffs was instituted on 21.6.2006. The plaintiffs claim that they are owners of the property, which was at one point of time owned by Smt. Gurnam Kaur and thereafter sold to Amrik Singh. In the second suit, which was filed on 16.7.2008, the plaintiffs sought declaration that the orders of partitioning the property in spite of injunction granted by the civil court in the previous suit are illegal, null and void.

4. Defendants-appellant contested the suit and pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was admitted that Gurnam Kaur was owner of 17/48th share in the joint khata. It was further pleaded that various sale-deeds were executed by Gurnam Kaur with respect to small plots in which Amrik Singh was either a witness or co-executant. Hence, it was pleaded that the sale-deed which has not been incorporated in the revenue record has lost its relevance.

5. The learned trial court, after appreciation of evidence available on the file, decreed both the suits filed by the plaintiffs. In one suit, declaration was granted that the plaintiffs are owners pursuant to the saledeed dated 14.3.1972, whereas in the second suit, declaration was given that the partition proceedings were illegal, null and void.

6. Two first appeals were preferred. The learned first appellate court also, after re-appreciating the evidence available on the file, dismissed the appeals filed by the defendant.

7. It will be significant to note here that the defendant gave up his right under the registered Will dated 12.4.1982, as his counsel made a statement in the court on 19.9.2014. The learned trial court has also noticed this fact in the judgment passed by it. The counsel, representing the defendant-appellant, has also admitted this fact before the first appellate court. The appellant did not stake its claim on the basis of Will.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the impugned judgments and the record of the case.

9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the partition proceedings, the plaintiffs were served, but they never chose to contest the partition proceedings. He has further submitted that once the partition proceedings have been allowed and possession has been delivered, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the land thereafter. He has further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the partition proceedings was not maintainable. He further submitted that the suit was barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiffs were not served in the partition proceedings. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 21.7.2006 when the partition proceedings were pending. Injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, which was affirmed in the appeal. Still the revenue authorities proceeded with the partition proceedings, although title dispute was pending in the civil court. He has next submitted that the partition proceedings were concluded with the order of Financial Commissioner passed in the year 2008. Immediately the plaintiffs filed the second suit. He fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAANIL KSHETARPAL, J.SURJIT SINGH – AppellantVersusJATINDER SINGH – RespondentR.S.A. Nos. 5541, 5542 of 2016Decided on : 23-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINTLand Revenue-Sanction of Mutation – Merely because the mutation of the sale-deed of agricultural land was not sanctioned in the revenue record, the rights of a vendee in the sale-deed and his successor would not evaporate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SURJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
JATINDER SINGH – Respondent
R.S.A. Nos. 5541, 5542 of 2016
Decided on : 23-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Land Revenue-Sanction of Mutation – Merely because the mutation of the sale-deed of agricultural land was not sanctioned in the revenue record, the rights of a vendee in the sale-deed and his successor would not evaporate.