SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1314

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Sawarni – Appellant
Versus
Inder Kaur – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • Mutation of property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor does it have any presumptive value of title; it only authorises the payment of land revenue. [1000011720005]
  • A lower appellate court must properly consider the material evidence and weighty reasons given by the trial court; failure to focus on or discuss such evidence renders the judgment unsustainable. [1000011720005]
  • A lower appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's decree without setting aside key findings or arriving at positive contrary findings on disputed issues of fact. [1000011720005]
  • A plaintiff succeeding to property as a co-heir is entitled to file a suit for declaration of title and possession claiming her share as well as the share of other co-heirs who support her claim or are untraceable. [1000011720005]
  • A succession certificate issued under the Indian Succession Act establishing legal heirs cannot be ignored and rights flowing from it are relevant; it cannot be annulled without following procedure under the Act. [1000011720005]
  • A will executed by a widow devising her estate to specific

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 1253 of 1994 dismissing the second appeal in limine, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge in Case No. 66 of 1986.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the disputed land. It was alleged in the plaint that one Gurbax Singh was the admitted owner of the land in question and he died leaving behind his widow Gurdip Kaur and daughters Swarni, the plaintiff, and Roori @ Kirpal Kaur. Said Gurbax Singh purchased the land in question form one Dhara Singh under a registered sale deed dated 5th September, 1958. Widow Gurdip Kaur died on 14th April, 1968 and on her death plaintiff and Roori succeeded to the disputed land in question. Gurdip Kaur also had executed a Will on 29th February, 1968 in favour of her two daughters the plaintiff and Roori. Plaintiff and Roori had obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the legal heirs of Gurdip Kaur from the Civil Court on 4th April, 1975. Said Roori was not heard of and did not cla

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top