Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 210 (HP)

BHOOP SINGH v. PAWAN KUMAR

2006-07-25

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against an order dated 29-8-2002 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jaisinghpur attested a mutation No. 61 on 25-10-1993 on the basis of a decision in civil appeal No. 28/1959, 27/1960 dated 18-1-1971. By this mutation the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade cancelled the entries incorporated in the record earlier in pursuance to a gift deed executed by one Smt. Mahanti Devi in favour of the present respondents No.1 to 4 on 19-9-1988. The respondents No.1 and 2 assailed the mutation before the Collector, Sub-Division, Jaisinghpur, who concluded that the gift deed was executed on 19-9-1988 i.e. after Smt. Mahanti Devi had acquired full ownership rights in the property subsequent to Shri Mangat Ram having executed a registered gift property subsequent to Shri Mangat Ram having executed a registered gift deed on 20-5-1974 in her favour. The learned Collector held that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had not correctly interpreted the decision of the civil court and that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 females had become absolute owner of their properties and therefore, Smt. Mahanti Devi could not be debarred from her right as an absolute owner. The Collector, therefore, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade dated 25-10-1993. 3. The present petition filed an appeal against the order of the Collector dated 30-6-1999 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner who observed that the Collector had gone into great detail as regards the civil court decree and the order passed by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh thereafter. He held that Smt. Mahanti alongwith Smt. Ghunghi, widows of Siba, son of Gokal and Gokal, son of Shri Ghotu, respectively at various points of time executed gift deeds in favour of Shri Mangat Ram, the predecessor in interest of the present respondents prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Shri Bhoop Singh and another filed a suit for declaration in the court of learned Sub-Judge, Dharamsala challenging the gift deeds, which was dismissed. The appeal preferred before the District Judge, Gurdaspur was also dismissed and thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Honble High Court. The appeal preferred before the District Judge, Gurdaspur was also dismissed and thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Honble High Court. The matter was remanded to the District Judge, Kangra who accepted the appeal and R.S.A. was filed by Shri Mangat Ram before the Honble High Court of H.P. which was also dismissed on 27-11-1973. The Commissioner (A.D.M.), Kangra further held that the transactions made by Smt. Mahanti that were set aside by the civil courts were prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On coming into force of this Act, however she became the absolute owner of the land with her. Smt. Mahanti died on 15-9-1994 and she had executed a gift deed in favour of Shri Mangat Ram in the year 1988, which was never challenged before any court. The Commissioner therefore, dismfssed the appeal. The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29-8-2002 passed by the Commissioner. 4. The record of the case has been perused and counsel for the parties heard. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly raised the issue of validity, of gifts executed by Smt. Ghungi and Smt. Mahanti through oral gift deed dated 1.3.1939, second by Smt. Gangi to Shri Mangat Ram through oral deed on 30.9.1948, third by Smt. Mahanti to Shri Mangat Ram through oral gift deed dated 3.5.1949 and fourth by Smt. Mahanti through registered gift deed dated 25.4.1956, and by Shri Mangat Ram to Smt. Mahanti on 20.5.1974. He stressed that the civil courts had dealt with the issue of gifts made by Smt. Ghungi and Smt Mahanti in favour of Shri Mangat Ram and held the same to be invalid and therefore Shri Mangat Ram or his successors could not lay any claim to the land in dispute. 5. The learned counsel for respondents stated that the Civil Courts had adjudicated in the matter of gifts made by Smt., Ghungi and Smt. Mahanti in favour of Shri Mangat Ram prior to 1956 when both the widows had only limited ownership by way of life interest in the land in dispute and could therefore not alienate the same in favour of Shri Mangant Ram. However, with the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Mahanti acquired full ownership of the property with her as per Section 14 of the Act ibid. However, with the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Mahanti acquired full ownership of the property with her as per Section 14 of the Act ibid. She was therefore, entitled to gift or otherwise transfer the property in any manner that she chose. Smt. Mahanti executed the gift deed in 1988 and she died in 1994. The gift deed executed by her was valid as she was absolute owner of the land in question. The learned counsel for respondents stressed that Sub-Divisional Collector, had on 30.6.1999 rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade regarding this matter whereby mutation No. 61 dated 25.10.1993 was attested and entries in the revenue record previously made for implementation of the gift deed of 19.9.1988 were reversed. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (ADC), Kangra had upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Jaisinghpur through his order dated 29.8.2002. 6. Having perused the record and weighed the argument of the counsel for both the parties, I am satisfied that the Sub-Divisional. Collector has correctly interpreted the law while passing his order on 30.6.1999 as the position regarding disposal of property by Hindu females was different prior to promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thereafter. Under Section 14 of the Act, ibid, the surviving widow Smt. Mahanti had the right to dispose of her property as she pleased and the gift deed dated 19.9.1989 in favour of her son Shri Mangat Ram did not suffer from any infirmity. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade erred in attesting the mutation No.61 and his order dated 25.10.1993 has rightly been set aside by the Collector, Sub-Division, Jaisinghpur on 30.6.1999. This revision petition is rejected. 7. The misc. application No. 145/2006 filed by on behalf of the petitioner under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act is disposed of as the revision petition has been decided finally. 8. Announced in the open court today the 25.7.2006. 9. The case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.