Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1244 (PNJ)

Beenawanti alias Paramjit Kaur v. Paramjit Kaur

2008-07-17

ROMILA DUBEY

body2008
ORDER Romila Dubey, FC. - These are three revision petitions under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the single order dated 31.3.04 of Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala regarding inheritance of Pritam Kaur (deceased) and her husband deceased of village Hussanpur and village Dehar, Tehsil, Dera Bassi District Patiala (Now SAS Nagar). These three revision petitions are similar. 2. Brief facts of this case are that Pritam Kaur w/o Gurdeep Singh daughter of Fauza Singh Khewatdar of village Hussanpur died on 2.2.93. Patwari Halqa entered the mutation No. 677 of inheritance of Pritam Kaur in favour of her husband Gurdeep Singh vide Rapat dated 10.8.99 but Gurdeep Singh had already died on 25.7.99. Therefore mutation No. 678 was entered vide Rapat dated 10.8.99 in favour of Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Kaur and Daljit Kaur, the present respondents in equal share. Both the mutations were sanctioned by A.C.II Dera Bassi on 11.8.99. Beena Wanti petitioner challenged this order before the Collector by filing an appeal which was accepted on 21.11.2000 and the case was remanded to A.C.I Dera Bassi to decide this case afresh after hearing the parties. 3. Mutation No. 2451 of village Dehar regarding inheritance of Gurdeep Singh s/o Fauza Singh Khewatdar of village Dehar Tehsil Dera Bassi District Patiala now SAS Nagar, who died on 25.7.99, was entered by the Patwari Halqa on 2.8.99 in favour of respondents Parmijit Kaur and others in equal share which was sanctioned by A.C.II Dera Bassi on 9.7.99. Beena Wanti the present petitioner impugned this order also before the Collector Dera Bassi who vide his order dated 21.1.2000 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to A.C.I Dera Bassi to decide this case afresh after hearing the parties. 4. The A.C.I clubbed all the three cases and decided the same vide his order dated 28.5.01 observing that the cardinal point involved in this case in whether Beena Wanti alias Paramjit Kaur (the present petitioner) is daughter of Paramjit Kaur and Gurdeep Singh or not. The A.C.I. in all the three mutations heard both the parties and examined the record and vide his order dated 28.5.01 sanctioned the mutation No. 677 of Hussanpur regarding inheritance of Pritam Kaur in favour of her husband Gurdeep Singh. The A.C.I. in all the three mutations heard both the parties and examined the record and vide his order dated 28.5.01 sanctioned the mutation No. 677 of Hussanpur regarding inheritance of Pritam Kaur in favour of her husband Gurdeep Singh. Mutation No. 678 of Hussanpur and mutation No. 2451 of village Dehar of inheritance of Gurdeep Singh was sanctioned in favour of present respondents Paramjit Kaur (wife), Rupinder and Daljit Kaur daughter of deceased Gurdeep Singh in equal share. Beena Wanti filed three separate appeals before the Collector who vide his order dated 30.9.2000 accepted the three appeals, decided the case of mutation Nos. 677 and 678 in a single order observing that from the School Admission, School Leaving Certificate, Voter List etc and from the statement of witnesses of nearest relatives of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh, the fact is proved that Beena Wanti is daughter of Pritam Kaur, first wife of Gurdeep Singh and therefore she is sole legal heir of Pritam Kaur. The Collector, therefore, accepted both the appeals and set aside the order of the A.C.I in mutation Nos. 677 and 678 of village Hussanpur Tehsil Dera Bassi. Similarly, while deciding the appeal in the case of Mutation No. 2451, the Collector observed that Gurdeep Singh was married with Pritam Kaur and after the death of Pritam Kaur, Gurdeep Singh remarried with Paramjit Kaur (present respondent No. 1) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of Gurdeep Singh from the wedlock with Paramjit Kaur. The Collector therefore vide his order dated 30.9.2002 sanctioned the mutation No. 2451 of village Dehar regarding inheritance of Gurdeep Singh in favour of present petitioner Benna Wanti and the present respondents in equal share. Aggrieved by this present respondent Paramjit Kaur and others filed three separate appeal before the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala who vide his order dated 31.3.04 accepted the appeals and set aside the order dated 28.5.01 of A.C.I Dera Bassi in respect mutation Nos. 677, 678 and 2451 of village Hussanpur and Dehar. Hence the present revision petition. 5. The case was reserved on 29.1.08 when Sh. S.N. Saini Adv. counsel for the petitioner and Sh. R.S. Chauhan, counsel for the respondents argued the case. Both the counsel have also filed written arguments. Sh. 677, 678 and 2451 of village Hussanpur and Dehar. Hence the present revision petition. 5. The case was reserved on 29.1.08 when Sh. S.N. Saini Adv. counsel for the petitioner and Sh. R.S. Chauhan, counsel for the respondents argued the case. Both the counsel have also filed written arguments. Sh. S.N. Saini, counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and referred to the averments made by him in the written arguments. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Beena Wanti petitioner is solely entitled to succeed the estate of Pritam Kaur who died on 2.2.93. So far as the inheritance of Gurdeep Singh is concerned, who died on 25.7.99 the Collector has rightly held that Beena Wanti along with other L.Rs. i.e. respondents is entitled to succeed. It is averred that the Commissioner did not upset any findings of the Collector and reversed the order, without recording any reason based on any evidence. It is averred that claim of the petitioner is based on the plea that she is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh and if the appeal of the petitioner is accepted then, Beena Wanti is entitled to succeed Pritam Kaur solely being her only daughter and she is also to get share of Gurdeep Singh along with the respondents. The specific case of respondents before the lower courts was that Beena Wanti alias Paramjit Kaur is daughter of Puro wife of Mahal Singh son of Saran Singh r/o village Rampur Gujran. It is stated that petitioner in support her case examined Gian Singh Head Teacher of Govt. Primary School Dehar who proved on record, admission form No. 183 dated 12.4.66 through which petitioner was admitted at Dehar by Gurdeep Singh being father. Further he also proved on record school leaving certificate, copy of attendance register, showing the petitioner as daughter of Gurdeep Singh. He also produced admission from No. 990 dated 29.7.91 relating to Rajwant Kaur d/o Beena Wanti who was got admitted by Smt. Pritam Kaur. Kehar Singh Central Head Teacher Govt. Primary School was also examined. Raunki Ram s/o Dial aged 80 years was examined to prove the relationship of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. Karnail Singh real maternal uncle of Beena Wanti was also examined. Kehar Singh Central Head Teacher Govt. Primary School was also examined. Raunki Ram s/o Dial aged 80 years was examined to prove the relationship of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. Karnail Singh real maternal uncle of Beena Wanti was also examined. An affidavit, attested by Notary, of Mahal Singh s/o Wasakha Singh r/o village Rampur Gujran was also produced on record where it is specially stated that in the village Rampur Gujran there is no person in the name of Mahal Singh s/o Saran Singh and he has three daughters and four sons but none of them is named as Beena Wanti. The entry made in register is forged and fabricated and this entry is not in the register of chowkidar of Rampur Gujran. It is contended that all the witnesses have proved by way of documentary evidence as O/1 two O/6 that the petitioner is the daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. These documents are 30 years old and the presumption of truth attaches to such documents under section 90 of Indian Evidence Act. Relationship of any person is required to be established by examining close relatives of the person and Karnail Singh the real maternal uncle of the petitioner and real brother of Pritam Kaur when examined specifically proved that petitioner Beena Wanti is the daughter of Pritam and Gurdeep Singh, three daughters were born, two already died and Beena Wanti is alive and she studied at village Dehar. So this witness who was closest relative clearly proves the relationship of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. This witness denied the suggestions put to him that Beena Wanti is daughter of Puro. So much so Naresh Kumar witness produced by respondents also admitted that there were two elder sister of Been Wanti and besides two daughters were studying at School Dehar. So the relationship as per requirement of Section 50 of Indian evidence Act was duly proved that the petitioner is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. But the Commissioner passed sketchy and non-speaking order, reversing the order of the Collector. The counsel has also produced photo copies of school admission form, school leaving certificate, voter list, copy of attendance register wherein it is mentioned the Beena Wanti is daughter of Pritam Kaur. Reliance has been placed upon RCR 1997(1) Page 174, RCR 1999(4) Page 126, AIR 1976 page 24 (P&H). The counsel has also produced photo copies of school admission form, school leaving certificate, voter list, copy of attendance register wherein it is mentioned the Beena Wanti is daughter of Pritam Kaur. Reliance has been placed upon RCR 1997(1) Page 174, RCR 1999(4) Page 126, AIR 1976 page 24 (P&H). AIR 1977 page 115 (Karnataka), 1988(2)PLR 680, 1997(3) RCR 488. 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent Sh. R.S. Chauhan argued that the orders of the Collector and A.C.I are well reasoned and do not need any interferences. It is contended that Pritam Kaur wife of Gurdeep Singh died issueless on 2.2.93 and respondent No. 1 Paramjit Kaur married to Gurdeep Singh and out of the wedlock respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born. It is contended that A.C.I has given comprehensive findings in the operative para of judgment that there is no evidence produced on the record by Beena Wanti to prove the factum of being the daughter of Puro, Massi of Gurdeep Singh and as such, the counsel contended A.C.I has rightly sanctioned the mutation in favour of the respondent. It is averred that as per Section 16(3) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 even if the marriage is to be held illegal the children born out of the wedlock are entitled to inherit being legitimate children and their right to property can not be taken away. Reliance has been placed upon Honble, S.C. of India in AIR 2000 SC 735. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the argument propounded by both the counsel, the revision petition as well as the orders of the lower courts. I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record the fact stand proved before the Collector that the petitioner Beena Wanti is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh and being the sole legal heir of Pritam Kaur, she is to inherit estate of Pritam Kaur and at the same time she is to share the inheritance of Gurdeep Singh along with the respondents in equal share. She is to get share of the property of Gurdeep Singh. The Collector has given detailed findings proving this fact that Beena Wanti petitioner is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh, whereas the A.C.I failed to appreciate the full facts of the case. She is to get share of the property of Gurdeep Singh. The Collector has given detailed findings proving this fact that Beena Wanti petitioner is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh, whereas the A.C.I failed to appreciate the full facts of the case. The orders of Collector are well reasoned and justified and need no interference. I have carefully gone through the impugned orders of the Commissioner also. The Commissioner accepted the appeal simply observing that the present respondents Paramjit Kaur etc. are the only natural heirs of the deceased and Beena Wanti has failed to prove that the she is daughter of Pritam Kaur and Gurdeep Singh. I am of the considered view that Commissioner has erred in his judgment and passed the impugned order without appreciating the full facts of the case. I therefore, accept the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 31.3.04 and uphold the order dated 30.9.2002 of Collector. Announced. Petition allowed.