Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2033
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Chhotu Ram - Appellants
Versus
Ram Parsad And Others - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 5064 of 2014
Decided On : 28-11-2019
Ashish Verma, Advocate, Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
The presumption of due execution of a registered document and the duty of revenue officials to keep the revenue record up to date were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Release Deed - Property Dispute - Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - Mutation - The court discussed the validity of the release deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the plaintiffs and the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favor of defendant No.3. The court emphasized the presumption of due execution of a registered document and the duty of revenue officials to keep the revenue record up to date. It held that the execution of the release deed stood duly proved and that the mutation does not confer any title, and therefore, the defendants cannot take advantage of the fact that mutation was not sanctioned on the basis of the release deed. The court also ruled that once defendant No.1 executed the release deed in favor of the plaintiffs, he was no longer the owner of the suit properties, and subsequent deeds executed by defendants No.2 and 3 were null and void. The plea of bona fide purchaser of defendant No.3 was not accepted, and the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership of certain properties based on a release deed executed by defendant No.1 in their favor. The defendants contested the claim, alleging collusion and challenging the validity of the release deed and subsequent sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the release deed executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the plaintiffs was valid and that subsequent deeds executed by defendants No.2 and 3 were null and void. The plea of bona fide purchaser of defendant No.3 was not accepted, and the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the release deed and sale deed, the entitlement of the plaintiffs to injunction, the collusiveness of the suit, the locus standi of the plaintiffs, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of due execution of a registered document, the duty of revenue officials to keep the revenue record up to date, and the fact that mutation does not confer any title. It ruled that once defendant No.1 executed the release deed in favor of the plaintiffs, subsequent deeds executed by defendants No.2 and 3 were null and void.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, setting aside the judgments passed by the lower courts and allowing the appeal with costs.
JUDGMENT
H.S. Madaan , J. - Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiffs Chhotu Ram and Hardwari Lal, both sons of Bhaira Ram son of Kishna Ram, resident of Village Banwali, Tehsil and District Fatehabad had brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants Ram Parsad, Lichhma Devi, Shanti Devi and State of Haryana. As per version of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 is their nephew being son of their sister. He was a co-sharer in the land measuring 51K-12M comprised in khewat No.22 khatoni No.26, situated at Village Kirdhan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad as per jamabandi for the year 2002- 03. He transferred his 1/40 share i.e. 1K-6M of land to the plaintiff No.1 and 1/80 share i.e. 13 marlas of land to plaintiff No.2, vide release deed No.555 dated 07.06.2007, registered in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Bhattu Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The actual physical possession was also delivered to the plaintiffs and ever since, the plaintiffs are owners in possession of those properties. As pleaded by the plaintiffs, they handed over the release deed to the halqa patwari, namely, Krishan Kumar, who had assured them that their names would be incorporated in the revenue record. About six months prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiffs visited the office of Halqa Patwari to obtain the copy of mutation, however, they were told that the original release deed had been lost and a certified copy of the same be obtained from the office of Sub Registrar Fatehabad, which be given to Patwari so as to get the mutation entered. The plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the release deed and gave it to Halqa Patwari, who assured to do the needful very soon; that some days prior to filing of the suit, defendant No.3 Smt. Shanti Devi tried to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. When the plaintiffs carried out enquiries, they came to know that defendant No.1 Ram Parsad had executed release deed No.1421 dated 15.10.2009 in favour of defendant No.2 Lichmma Devi with regard to 2K-11M of land including the suit properties and mutation No. 4919 had also been entered and sanctioned on the basis of that release deed on 30.10.2009; that defendant No.2 had then executed a release deed bearing document No.1509 dated 03.11.2009 in favour of defendant No.3 regarding 9 kanals 9 marlas of land including the suit properties. In that way, the sale deed is also illegal, null and void, not binding upon rights of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, they requested the defendants several times to admit their claim and to treat the release deed No.1421 dated 15.10.2009, mutation No.4919 dated 30.10.2009 entered and sanctioned on the basis of impugned release deed and sale deed No.1509 dated 03.11.2009 as illegal, null and void but in vain, rather, defendant No.3 threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties and to alienate the same. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs brought the suit in question.
2. On being put to notice, all the respondents appeared and filed separate written statements. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he had taken various legal objections. On merits, contending that he had executed release deed in favour of defendant No.2 only, whereas, the land measuring 12 kanals and remaining land i.e. 1K-19M was released in favour of the plaintiffs by him out of love and affection and as per mutual settlement. The answering defendant was blind by birth and by taking benefit of this fact, defendant No.2 got executed the release deed in question regarding 51 marlas of land, though the release deed was to be executed regarding 12 marlas of land. In that way, defendant No.2 cheated the answering defendant. He contended that he has no objection in case the impugned release deed and impugned sale deed are set aside. However, in the end, he prayed
