Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3204 (PNJ)

Puran Chand v. Deepak Gosain

2006-08-08

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2006
Judgment , J. 1. Balbir Singh was the owner of the suit land. He died on 12.9.1985. He left behind his widow Swaraj Rani (respondent No.5) and his daughter Parveen Kumari. His inheritance was, however, sanctioned in favour of Swaraj Rani on the basis of oral Will dated 8.7.1985 on 16.11.1985. Parveen Kumari who was married to Yog Raj (respondent No.2) also died on 18.12.1985 leaving behind her son Deepak Gosain (respondent No.1) and her husband Yog Raj. Said Yog Raj re-married in 1986. Swaraj Rani sold the entire property of Balbir Singh in favour of the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1990. The said sale deed was challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the legal heirs of Parveen Kumari with the allegations that Parveen Kumari had inherited half share in the estate left by her father Balbir Singh while Swaraj Rani being the widow of Balbir Singh inherited half share. Therefore, Swaraj Rani had no right to alienate the entire land of Balbir Singh in favour of the appellants. 2. The said suit was contested by the present appellants by filing written statement. Legal objections were also pleaded. Even Swaraj Rani had taken the plea that Deepak Gosain was not the son of Parveen Kumari from her wedlock with Yog Raj. It was further pleaded that Yog Raj had re-married 2 or 3 months after the death of Parveen Kumari. Therefore, it was denied if respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the legal heirs of Parveen Kumari. It was further pleaded that her husband Balbir Singh had bequeathed the property in her favour and mutation was also sanctioned in her favour alone. Therefore, Parveen Kumari had not inherited any share in the estate left by Balbir Singh. Mutation was not challenged by the appellants for a long time nor it was challenged by Parveen Kumari during her life time. 3. The appellants also filed written statement and contested the suit. Legality and maintainability of the suit was disputed. It was pleaded that they have purchased the suit land from Swaraj Rani vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1990 for a sum of Rs.9,03,750/-. They were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. 4. The learned trial Court reached the conclusion that Deepak Gosain (respondent No.1) was born on 21.4.1983 from the wedlock of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj respondent. They were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence. 4. The learned trial Court reached the conclusion that Deepak Gosain (respondent No.1) was born on 21.4.1983 from the wedlock of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj respondent. It was also held that Swaraj Rani had failed to prove any Will in her favour by her husband Balbir Singh and it was dis-believed. Deepak Gosain was held entitled to the joint possession of the land to the extent of half share. The sale deed in favour of the appellants to that extent was held invalid and not binding on respondent No.1. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2000. 5. The appellants filed an appeal in the learned Lower Appellate Court. Swaraj Rani also filed an appeal. Both these appeals were decided by the learned Lower Appellate Court by common judgment. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2001. 6. Hence, the present appeal. 7. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that even Deepak Gosain was not the son of Parveen Kumari. This submission has, however, no force. Deepak Gosain has produced his middle standard school certificate which reveals that he has passed middle standard examination in the year 1998. In the said certificate, his date of birth was stated to be 21.4.1983. The marriage of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj was subsisting at that time while Parveen Kumari died in December, 1985. The school certificate is the most reliable document and, therefore, believing the same to be true, the only presumption is that Deepak Gosain, respondent No.1 is the son born from the wedlock of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj respondent. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that Deepak Gosain was the son of Parveen Kumari born from her wedlock with Yog Raj do not suffer from any illegality and the same are up-held. 8. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that after the death of Balbir Singh on 12.9.1985, his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his widow Swaraj Rani on 16.11.1985 on the basis of Will dated 8.7.1985. 8. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that after the death of Balbir Singh on 12.9.1985, his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his widow Swaraj Rani on 16.11.1985 on the basis of Will dated 8.7.1985. This clearly revealed that although Parveen Kumari daughter of Balbir Singh was alive but she was deprived of the inheritance by the Will executed by Balbir Singh in favour of his widow Swaraj Rani. The said mutation remained on the file during the life time of Parveen Kumari which was not challenged by her. It remained on the file unchallenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 till 12.5.1990 when the land was purchased by the appellants vide a registered sale deed from Swaraj Rani. Hence, it was prayed that mutation was correctly sanctioned as it remained unchallenged and the appellants also believed it with bona fide intention to be correct. 9. This submission has no merit at all. It is admitted even by the appellants that Parveen Kumari had died on 18.12.1985 i. e. about one month after the mutation was sanctioned in favour of her mother Swaraj Rani about the inheritance of Balbir Singh. Yog Raj respondent had re-married about two months after the death of his first wife Parveen Kumari and Deepak Gosain respondent was a minor child of 2/3 years of age having been born on 21.4.1983. Therefore, the mutation sanctioned in favour of Swaraj Rani on 16.11.1985 could not be challenged. Absence of making a challenge to the mutation dated 16.11.1985, therefore, clearly stands explained on the file. Moreover, the mutation cannot change ownership. 10. The next submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Since the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of Will in favour of Swaraj Rani that was taken to be correct by the appellants. The appellants by making payment of a huge amount of more than Rs.9 lacs had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1990. Since the mutation was in favour of Swaraj Rani vendor, therefore, the appellants were not required to make any other enquiry. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Anup Singh and Ors. V/s. Smt. Bachni and Ors. (1996-3) Punjab Law Reporter 184, Smt. Asharfi Devi V/s. Tirlok Chand and Ors. Since the mutation was in favour of Swaraj Rani vendor, therefore, the appellants were not required to make any other enquiry. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Anup Singh and Ors. V/s. Smt. Bachni and Ors. (1996-3) Punjab Law Reporter 184, Smt. Asharfi Devi V/s. Tirlok Chand and Ors. AIR 1965 Punjab and Haryana 140 and Jagan Nath and Ors. V/s. Raj Kumar and Ors.1988 (2) Revenue Law Reporter 287. It was further submitted that after satisfying themselves about the mutation in favour of the vendor, the appellants were not required to go either to the family members of the vendor nor they were required to make further enquiries from the villagers. Therefore, the appellants are the bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. 11. This submission has been considered. The mutation on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants has been proved on the file as Exhibit PW3/1. In this mutation, there is an entry in favour of Swaraj Rani, widow and Parveen Kumari daughter of Balbir Singh and the words in equal shares were also written. However, there was a deletion of the name of Paveen Kumar daughter as also of the words equal shares. These entries and deletion were sufficient to put the appellants on guard that further enquiries were required. If there had been no reference to Parveen Kumari in the mutation, Exhibit PW3/1, then there was some reason for the appellants to contend that they were not aware if any other legal heir of Balbir Singh was alive at the time of his death or not but since this entry was there and there was deletion of the name of Parveen Kumari daughter of Balbir Singh, it was sufficient for the appellants to become alert and to verify the factual position before purchasing the land from Swaraj Rani vendor. Even on the back of this mutation Exhibit PW3/1, a pedigree table was prepared by the revenue official in which again Balbir Singh is shown to have left two legal heirs namely his widow Swaraj Rani and his daughter Parveen Kumari. The words Mazud Hai (present) are mentioned in the pedigree table against both these names which means that the daughter and the widow were alive when Balbir Singh died. The words Mazud Hai (present) are mentioned in the pedigree table against both these names which means that the daughter and the widow were alive when Balbir Singh died. This was also sufficient for the appellants to presume that Swaraj Rani was not the only legal heir of Balbir Singh. They were, therefore, required to hold further enquiry to verify the title of Swaraj Rani and if they failed to do so, they have to suffer. 12. Furthermore, the entry was that there was an oral Will dated 8.7.1985 in favour of Swaraj Rani. There is nothing like oral Will in law. This entry was also sufficient to make the appellants cautious about the ownership or title of Swaraj Rani or about the validity of the Will. Atleast they should have asked Swaraj Rani to show them the Will of Balbir Singh in her favour. There is no such evidence if any such effort was made by them. 13. It is, therefore, held that the appellants had failed to make enquiries about the ownership of Swaraj Rani which they were presumed to make after going through the contents of mutation, Exhibit PW-3/1 which became the basis for them to believe that Swaraj Rani was the owner. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants are on different facts and, therefore, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the appellants have failed to make necessary enquiries which were necessary for them after going through the contents of mutation, Exhibit PW3/1, they cannot be held to be bona fide purchasers. 14. Obviously, Balbir Singh was succeeded by two legal heirs Swaraj Rani to the extent of half share and his daughter Parveen Kumari to the extent of half share. Therefore, Swaraj Rani had no right to alienate the land which had come to the share of her daughter Parveen Kumari on the death of her husband Balbir Singh. Parveen Kumari after her death is succeeded by her son Deepak Gosain, respondent No.1. 15. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that Swaraj Rani had no right to alienate the suit property of her daughter Parveen Kumari and that the appellants are not the bona fide purchasers and that the share of Parveen Kumari has come to the share of her son Deepak Gosain, respondent No.1. 16. 15. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that Swaraj Rani had no right to alienate the suit property of her daughter Parveen Kumari and that the appellants are not the bona fide purchasers and that the share of Parveen Kumari has come to the share of her son Deepak Gosain, respondent No.1. 16. For the reasons discussed above, I also find no ground to disturb the findings recorded by the Courts below. 17. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. .