In RSA No.1828 of 1991 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- If title of party is established on basis of other independent evidence on record corroborating mutation entries, then such entry can certainly be taken into consideration, reaffirms P&H HC
Justice Manisha Batra [24-03-2023]

feature-top

Read Order: KARTAR SINGH VS BHAGWAN KAUR

 

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, March 25, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana Court has reiterated that the mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title over some land and has no presumptive value of title.

Noting that no  substantial question of law had arisen in this case which required consideration, Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant-Kartar Singh against the judgment whereby the order decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, had been affirmed and the appeal of the defendant was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal were that the plaintiff Bhagwant Kaur filed the above mentioned civil suit on the averments that she was co-sharer in the land fully detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. Smt. Nand Kaur who was another co-sharer had sold her 1/6 th share in the disputed land to the defendant Kartar Singh vide a registered sale deed dated December 16, 1987.

 

 The sale consideration amount was shown to be Rs 1, 27,359.37  though in fact it was much lesser and an excess amount had been added to defeat the rights of the pre-emption of the plaintiff in the disputed land. 

 

The plaintiff, while alleging that she had got a superior right of pre-emption against the defendant who was stranger and was not related to the vendor, prayed for passing a decree for possession of the disputed land by way of pre-emption. 

 

In response to the notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement alleging that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer in the disputed land. While admitting that Sh. Nand Kaur had sold her share in the disputed land to the defendant, it was stressed that the sale consideration amount as shown in the sale deed was correct and had been actually fixed in good faith and paid by him to the vendor. While further alleging that the sale of disputed land being made by the female was not pre-emptible under Section 15 (2-A) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 

 

 On appraising the evidence produced on record and after considering the contentions raised by  counsel for both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff subject to depositing the sale consideration amount after deducting the jare-panjum amount already deposited, within one month. 

 

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal before the First Appellate Authority which too was dismissed vide judgment dated August 23, 1991. The present appeal was preferred to assail the findings as given by the Courts below. 

 

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Court was of the considered opinion that the findings given by the Courts below did not warrant any interference. 

 

There can undoubtedly be no dispute with regard to the well settled proposition of law that the mutation of land in revenue records does not create or extinguish title over some land. It has no presumptive value of title”, the Bench said.

 

“However, simultaneously, it is equally well settled that if the title of a party is established on the basis of other independent evidence on record corroborating the mutation entries, then such entry can certainly be taken into consideration”, the Court further noted. 

 

In the instant case, though the appellant in his written statement had denied that the respondent-plaintiff was co-sharer in the disputed property, however, there was no specific denial of this fact by the appellant in his sworn deposition rather during cross-examination, he stated that he did not know that the respondent was having any share in the disputed property or not. 

 

Even while cross-examining the respondent, it was suggested that the land in dispute was sold to the appellant by the sister-in-law of the respondent, the Court noted. 

 

The appellant did not specifically deny the factum of the husband of the respondent being co-sharer and subsequently the respondent having become a co-sharer in the joint khewat,the Court further noted. 


As per the Bench, the Trial Court had rightly recorded a finding that the respondent-plaintiff was a co-sharer in the joint khewat after due appreciation of evidence produced on record and the First Appellate Court had committed no error in affirming those findings.

 

 As such, the concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the Courts below were well reasoned and did not warrant any interference by this Court and deserve to be affirmed. No such substantial question of law had arisen in this case which required consideration, the Court at the outset observed. Hence, finding no merit, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

 

Add a Comment