A.M.KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI
AJIT KAUR @ SURJIT KAUR – Appellant
Versus
DARSHAN SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS – Respondent
What is the effect of mutation in revenue records on property title? What is required for a Hindu widow's possession to become absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Key Points: - Mutation of property in revenue records is fiscal in nature and does not create or extinguish title, nor have presumptive value on title (!) [1000633260013]. - Possession of a Hindu widow must be under some vestige of a claim, right, title, or legal devise to qualify as "possessed" under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (!) [1000633260014][1000633260015][1000633260016]. - Mere possession without legal title or claim does not confer absolute ownership to a Hindu widow under Section 14(1) after the 1956 Act (!) [1000633260019][1000633260020]. - A declaratory decree upholding reversionary rights restores property to the alienor's estate upon death, allowing succession per law or valid will [1000633260013]. - The will dated 5th January, 1973, executed by Bhana was upheld as valid, entitling plaintiffs to the property excluding the appellant [1000633260002][1000633260012]. - The oral gift to Banti in 1950 was limited to Bhana's lifetime and did not confer absolute ownership post-1956 Act [1000633260001][1000633260004]. - The later will dated 21st February, 1973, claimed by appellant was not duly proved due to suspicious circumstances [1000633260012]. - Trial court finding that Banti became absolute owner was reversed on appeal, upheld by High Court [1000633260003][1000633260004]. - Appeal by defendant (Ajit Kaur) dismissed, affirming plaintiffs' right to possession [1000633260020].
JUDGMENT
Rastogi, J.
This is the defendant's appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 28th July, 2004 and arises in the following circumstances.
2. Original plaintiffs, Darshan Singh son of Bhana, and Amriti and Udhi alias Iqbal Kaur, daughters of Bhana filed a suit for possession of the subject land in dispute. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that Bhana, son of Moti was the original owner of the subject properties in dispute. The plaintiffs along with one Gurdev Kaur were the children of aforesaid Bhana from his first wife Bhago and after the death of his wife (Bhago), Bhana was remarried to Smt. Banti but because of strained relations of Bhana and Smt. Banti, they started living separately. There was even a litigation between them. Bhana and Smt. Banti had a daughter, namely, Ajit Kaur(appellant) from the aforesaid wedlock. To settle the dispute between them, Bhana parted the suit land to Smt. Banti by way of gift for her maintenance way back in the year 1950. In furtherance thereof, mutation was also entered in favour of Smt. Banti bearing no. 3813 sanctioned on 25th February, 1950. The aforesaid gift came to be chall
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.