Jamuna Prasad v. Parmeshwar Din — 1977 DIGILAW 39 (ALL)

JUDGMENT P. Krishna, Member. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a case of mutation made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, dated September 30, 1975 recommending that the revision be allowed, the order of the trial court be set aside and the mutation application of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 be rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dal Chand, the recorded Bhumidhar executed a sale deed in favour of Parmeshwar Din, Kishori Lal, Ram Bharosey and Babu Ram in respect of share of plots Nos. 670, 690, 697 and 725 and entire plot Nos. 675, 676, and 695. On basis of this sale deed Parmeshwar Din and others applied for mutation of their names over the land in dispute. One Jamuna Prasad filed objections alleging that Dal Chand was not the tenure holder and the sale deed executed by him was fictitious. Neither the vendor was ever in possession nor the vendor was ever in possession nor the vendees are in possession. The objector had further challenged the title of the vendor Dal Chand and asserted that he had renounced the world and became a Sanyasi resulting in his civil death long before the execution of the sale deed and hence whatever title or share he had ever possessed the same extinguished long time and when the became a Sanyasi. The vendees Parmeshwar Din and others, therefore, acquired no title under the sale deed and their mutation application deserves to be rejected. One more objection was filed by Bhagwan Din, opposite party No. 5 with similar allegations opposing the mutation application. The Naib Tahsildar before whom the parties led their evidence in his report dated December 16, 1974 recommended that the mutation application be rejected because neither the vendor nor the vendee had been in possession over the land in dispute. The S.D.O. however after considering the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed mutation in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the S.D.O. dated March 18, 1975 Jamuna Prasad went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow who has recommended that the revision be allowed, the order of the trial court dated March 18, 1975 be set aside and the mutation application of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 be rejected. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the S.D.O. dated March 18, 1975 Jamuna Prasad went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow who has recommended that the revision be allowed, the order of the trial court dated March 18, 1975 be set aside and the mutation application of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 be rejected. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 4. It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that from the evidence on record it is clear that Dal Chand had renounced the world by becoming a Sanyasi long before the execution of the sale deed and as such all rights and title which Dal Chand had possessed in the land were extinguished at the time of renunciation and the property passed to his heirs. After entering into a religious order and renouncing all worldly affairs Dal Chand had no title to the land in dispute and the sale deed executed by him is void and inoperative. The trial court acted illegally in ordering mutation in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 who were not in possession. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on para 111 of Hindu Law by Mulla. It has been mentioned therein that where a person enters to a religious order renouncing all worldly affairs, his action is tantamount to civil death and it excludes him altogether from inheritance and from a share on partition. All property which belongs to such a person at the time of renunciation pass on to his heirs but the property acquired by him subsequent to the renunciation pass to his spiritual heirs. The learned counsel also referred to a decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 S.C. 606 wherein it has been laid down that the entrance into religious order generally operates as Civil death. The learned counsel further urged that it was clear from the record that the revisionist were in possession of the property long before the execution of the sale deed. Neither the vendor was ever in possession nor the vendees came in possession over the land in dispute. The mutation order passed by the trial court in incorrect and illegal. 5. The learned counsel further urged that it was clear from the record that the revisionist were in possession of the property long before the execution of the sale deed. Neither the vendor was ever in possession nor the vendees came in possession over the land in dispute. The mutation order passed by the trial court in incorrect and illegal. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that there is a recital regarding delivery of possession to the vendees in the sale deed and as such the mutation order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and correct. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court holding the vendees to be in possession cannot be interfered with in the revision. The learned counsel further urged that since the name of Dal Chand was recorded in the Khatauni, he had rightly executed the sale deed in favour of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. The mutation cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he had renounced the world had became a Sanyasi and had lost his rights on account of his civil death. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence on record it is established beyond doubt that Dal Chand became a Sanyasi and had entered into a religious order long before the execution of the sale deed. According to para 111 of the Hindu Law by Mulla the action of Dal Chand was tantamount to civil death and on his renunciation his interest in the land in dispute will devolve upon the revisionist who is his nephew and legal heir. The sale deed executed by Dal Chand is void and inoperative and mutation cannot be allowed on the basis of this sale deed. The trial court has based his decision merely on the presumption that the possession of one cosharer is possession of all but it will not apply in the present case where cotenancy rights have not been accepted and the objector-revisionist has asserted his own exclusive possession over the land in dispute. Since Dal Chand became a Sanyasi long before the execution of the sale deed it is established that the vendor Dal Chand was not in possession over the land in dispute and the vendees opposite parties Nos. Since Dal Chand became a Sanyasi long before the execution of the sale deed it is established that the vendor Dal Chand was not in possession over the land in dispute and the vendees opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 also got no possession on the basis of the suit deed. The argument of the opposite party that the finding of the trial court cannot be set aside in revision is not acceptable because in accordance with the ruling reported in 1967 R.D. 84 (F.B.) the Board has vide powers of interference in the findings of the trial court which were grossly erroneous. 7. In the result, I accept the reference, set aside the order of the trial court dated March 18, 1975 and reject the mutation application of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. The revision of Jamuna Prasad is accordingly allowed.