High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Lakhan Pal Singh & Ors v. The Presiding Officer & Ors - RSA-1467-1980  RD-P&H 5093 (1 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 1467 of 1980
Date of Decision: 21.7.2006
Lakhan Pal Singh and others ...Appellants Versus
The Presiding Officer and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present: Shri Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.
Shri Sushant Maini, DAG, Punjab.
The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration, challenging mutation No. 2371 dated 24.4.1971 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible and illegal possession of land measuring 82 kanals 1 marla, was dismissed by the both the Courts.
One Yousaf was allotted land in the year 1957 in lieu of the land owned by his father in village Sukhladhi, Tehsil and District Bathinda.
The father of Yousaf had 1/6th
share in the said land and the brother of Yousaf migrated to Pakistan in 1947, therefore Yousaf became owner to the the extent of 1/12th
share but by mistake Yousaf was recorded owner of 1/2th
share in the land measuring 164 bighas 12 biswas. The said mistake was corrected by the Deputy Custodian General on 29.1.1963. The plaintiffs asserted themselves to be tenants under Yousaf since the year 1965 and have purchased the said 1/2th
share of Yousaf in the land
RSA No. 1467 of 1980 (2)
measuring 164 bighas 12 biswas by registered sale deed dated 15.1.1970 in the sum of Rs.8000/-. On the strength of the said sale deed, the appellants are claiming themselves to be owners and in possessions of 164 bighas 12 biswas.
Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs are not the bona- fide purchasers for value and consideration of 1/2th share of the suit land
but decreed the suit to the extent of 1/12th share on the basis of sale effected
by Yousaf in their favour. Injunction was also granted in respect of the said share in the suit land.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants have purchased 1/2th
share in the total land measuring 164
bighas 12 biswas on the basis of entries in the Jamabandi, wherein Yousaf was recorded as an allottee of the said shares. Since the appellants have purchased the said share of land on the basis of entry in the revenue record, the appellants should be treated bona-fide purchase for value and consideration. Reliance is placed upon Kali Ram and others Vs. Union of India and others 1976 PLR 475.
However, I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Deputy Custodian General, vide order dated 29.1.1963 has corrected the allotment made in favour of Yousaf to the extent of 1/12th
share in the total land measuring 164 bighas 12 biswas. The appellants were inducted as tenants thereafter and have purchased land on 15.1.1970. On the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Custodian General, Yousaf had no title or interest in the land exceeding 1/12th
share. Since Yousaf (vendor of appellants) has no title or interest in the land exceeding 1/12th
share, the appellants cannot claim that
RSA No. 1467 of 1980 (3)
they are bona fide purchasers for value and consideration. It is well settled that the revenue record is not the documents of title. Mere fact that the mutation was not recorded before the sale in favour of the appellants, cannot make the appellants as bona-fide purchasers for value and consideration as their vendor has no title or interest in the land exceeding 1/12th
share in the land measuring 164 bighas 12 biswas. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, the sale was effected on 17.12.1958, whereas the allotment in favour of the vendor was cancelled on 12.6.1961 i.e. after the sale, whereas in the case in hand the record has been ordered to be corrected much before the purchase by the appellants.
The findings recorded by the Courts below are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence.
In view thereof, I do not find that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffers from any parent illegality or irregularity, which may raise any substantial question of law in this second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
02-08-2006 (HEMANT GUPTA)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.