KARNAIL SINGH Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected revision petitions which are directed against the order dated 15.2.1998 of Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide which he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of the Collector. The brief facts of this case are that one Shangara Singh sold some land in favour of the petitioners. Smt. Chhindo widow of Shangara Singh filed a civil suit during life time of Shangara Singh on the ground that the land was ancestral property and her husband was not competent to alienate it. The following five sale deeds were executed namely : Sale Deed dated 31.1.1985 Sale Deed dated 8.7.1985 (two) Sale Deed dated 6.2.1985 Sale Deed dated 13.8.1986 The mutation was also sanctioned in the name of the vendees. On being challenged, Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 31.5.1988 held sale deeds in order. However, on appeal Additional District Judge vide his order dated 5.9.1992 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge dated 13.5.1988. This order was given effect to in the revenue record and the mutation entries were reversed in favour of the heirs. RSA No. 2299 of 1992 was filed by the present petitioners in the High Court in which the following order was passed :

(2.) THE plea of the petitioner is that since they are in possession, therefore, the mutation entries made in their name on the basis of the registered sale deeds should continue and the entries reversed in view of the order of Additional District Judge should be brought to the original status.

(3.) I have considered the arguments forwarded by both the ld. Counsel and gone though the record. It is an admitted fact that the vendor Shangara Singh died after execution of the sale deeds and civil litigation started, during his lifetime. As far as the change of the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deeds is concerned, this can be done only after the validity of these documents is finally established by the judicial authority having jurisdiction. However, the fact is not denied that inheritance cannot be kept in abeyance. Somebody is to be recorded owner after the death of the original owner. It is rightly pointed out by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division that as per Para 7.17 of the Land Records Manual the factum of possession is not relevant in case of inheritance. Therefore, I do not find any justification for interfering with the order of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division has ordered that the owners cannot alienate the land in dispute in any way. I reiterate the same and direct that the respondents will not alienate the land in dispute in any way i.e. by way of sale/mortgage, etc. till the issue is finally decided by the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be placed on each file. Announced. Petition dismissed.